Swearingen v. Mnuchin et al

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion (doc. 24 ) as construed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Signed on 1/23/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 1/23/2020.) (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

WILEY SHREVE SWEARINGEN,

Case No. 1:19-cv-00586-CL
ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff,

v.
STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, DAVID
J. KAUTLER, CHERYL CARDERO,
G.J. CARTER-LOUIS, UNITED STATES,
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
The Court previously adopted Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 15), granting defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 8)
and dismissing this case with prejudice. (doc. 21) Now before the Court is plaintiff

Page 1 - ORDER AND OPINION

Wiley Shreve Swearingen's motion for rehearing en bane (doc. 24). As plaintiff is
proceeding prose the Court construes plaintiffs motion as motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the interest of
fairness. 1
A district court is permitted to reconsider and amend a prev10us order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration, however, is "an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate
only if "the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is
an intervening change in controlling law." 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179
F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
Likewise, a Court may grant relief from final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)
for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
1

There is no statutory framework for a rehearing en bane in Federal District

Court.
Page 2 - ORDER AND OPINION

prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff motion does not provide sufficient grounds for reconsideration as
construed under either rule. Rather, plaintiff restates argument which were rejected
in the F&R and by this Court. He fails to show any newly discovered evidence, clear
error oflaw, or intervening change in the law in the previous decisions. Likewise, he
does not articulate any grounds for relief under Rule 60.
Thus, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion (doc. 24) as construed under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 0:Sµ_~ay of January 2020.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 3 - ORDER AND OPINION