Ashton v. State of Montana et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/2/2016. (Copy mailed to Ashton). (NOS, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
CV 15-96-M-DLC-JCL

ROBIN ASHTON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
vs.
STATE OF MONTANA, OFFICE OF
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, JUDICIAL
STANDARDS COMMITTEE,
MONTANA MEDICAL LEGAL
PANEL, DAWN APPLE, DIANE
TOMKINS, JEAN BRANSCUM, DOE
DEFENDANTS #1-45,

FILED
NOV 02 2016
Clerk, U.S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

Defendants.
On January 5, 2016, this Court adopted United States Magistrate Judge
Jeremiah C. Lynch's findings and recommendations and dismissed Plaintiff Robin
Ashton's ("Ashton") Complaint with prejudice. On August 19, 2016, Ashton filed
a Motion for Reconsideration. Ashton did not seek leave of Court to file the
Motion for Reconsideration, as required by Local Rule 7.3(a). While Local Rule
7 .3 is intended to eliminate motions for reconsideration that seek nothing more
than de novo consideration of the arguments and authorities previously presented
to the Court, this Court will address Ashton's Motion for Reconsideration on the
merits.
-1-

Post-judgment motions for reconsideration are governed by Rules 59(e) and
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "A district court may grant a Rule
59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear
error, or ifthere is an intervening change in the controlling law." Wood v. Ryan,
759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). "Clear error exists when ... [a] court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Adamson Apparel, Inc., 785 F.3d
1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). "[A] Rule 59(e) motion is an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources." Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court is not willing to entertain the same arguments Ashton has made
from the outset of this case. Not only has Ashton failed to present her motion
according to Rule 7.3 of the Montana District's Local Rules of Civil Procedure,
but the substance of her motion does not call into question Judge Lynch's analysis
of her case or the undersigned's adoption of that analysis. Ashton simply rehashes
her arguments relating to the appointment of "standby counsel" and requests that
the Court vacate its Order adopting Judge Lynch's findings and recommendations
so that she may have assistance from counsel to help draft a second amended
-2-

Ashton has already twice requested appointment of counsel in this matter
and the Court denied those motions because Ashton was unable to prove
"exceptional circumstances" sufficient to justify appointing her a lawyer. The
Court determined the following in regards to that motion in its original Order:
Considering the lack of specificity in Ashton's allegations with regard
to who wronged her and how, the Court finds that she is unlikely to
succeed on the merits. Furthermore, while Ashton was unable to pare
down her pleading in line with Judge Lynch's instructions, neither her
Complaint, her Amended Complaint, nor her objections support the
conclusion that she lacks the ability to communicate or articulate in
writing.
(Doc. 10 at 4.) This Court then revisited the appointment of attorney in her
informal, post-judgment request via email. In her email, Ashton requested standby
counsel based on her "extensive disability needs," without providing any
documentation to that effect. (Doc. 12.) Again, the Court denied the motion for
appointment of counsel because she continued to fall short of proving
"exceptional circumstances" necessary to appoint a lawyer.
The Court will not reconsider that motion for a third time since Ashton has
failed to present any new evidence that would further explain her need for an
attorney. Consequently, the Court does not find clear error exists in the record and
the motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Robin Ashton's Motion for
-3-

Reconsideration (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
DATED this

l ~day ofNovember, 2016.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-4-