Donaldson v. Williams et al

Filing 74

ORDER - Defendants Williams, Thompson, Lipscomb, Ahern, Neilson, Bonkosky, and Hillman's motion to alter judgment 63 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motions to dismiss 62 , and motion for reconsideration 68 are DENIED. Signed on 1/8/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

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

DANNY WAYNE DONALDSON,

Case No. 2:12-cv-00080-SU

Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
GARY L. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

SIMON, District Judge.
On November 2, 2012, this Court issued an opinion and order adopting Magistrate Judge
Patricia Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendations, Dkt. 52, and dismissing this action for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 59. On the same day, the court entered a judgment dismissing
this action as to all Defendants. Dkt. 60.
After the court entered its judgment, Defendants Williams, Thompson, Lipscomb, Ahern,
Neilson, Bonkosky, and Hillman moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) “to add language finding no just reason for delay concerning the effectiveness of the
judgment.” Dkt. 63. Defendants’ motion is premised on Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which permits a
district court to enter a “final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties . . .
if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Rule 54(b) “applies
where the district court has entered a final judgment as to particular claims or parties, yet that
judgment is not immediately appealable because other issues in the case remain unresolved.
Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district court may sever this partial judgment for immediate appeal

whenever it determines that there is no just reason for delay.” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc.,
283 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule 54(b) is not applicable here because the Court’s
November 2, 2012, judgment applies to all parties and all claims in this case. Defendant’s motion
to alter or amend the judgment is, therefore, denied.
In addition, Plaintiff has filed two motions since the Court entered the judgment. Dkts. 62
and 68. The Court construes these motions as motions to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to
Rule 59(e) and for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b). The Court may alter or amend
its judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) “if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was
manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co.
v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) is available in the event of:
(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 prospectively is no longer
equitable; or

(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff’s motions fail to meet the requirements for relief under either
Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). For the reasons set forth in Judge Sullivan’s Findings and

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Recommendations, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s
motions, Dkts. 62 and 68, are denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Williams, Thompson, Lipscomb, Ahern, Neilson, Bonkosky, and Hillman’s
motion to alter judgment, Dkt. 63, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motions to dismiss, Dkt. 62, and
motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 68, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER