Holdner v. Coba et al

Filing 45

AMENDED OPINION and ORDER - DATED this 8th day of August, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)

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

WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, D.B.A.
HOLDNER FARMS

Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 3:15-cv-2039-AC

AMENDED OPINION AND
ORDER

v.
KATY COBA, DIRECTOR OF OREGON
DEPT. OF AGRlCULTURE, IN HER
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DICK PEDERSON, DIRECTOR OF THE
OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPA CITY,
Defendants.

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 29, 2015, alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and requesting a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs complaint disputed the state's authority
to regulate livestock operations on his land, and appeared to allege: (1) a § 1983 claim for
deprivation of constitutional due process rights; (2) a claim that the Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and ODA acted outside their enforcement authority; and (3) a

Page 1 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

claim that plaintiffs land patent bars the state from regulating water quality on plaintiffs land.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiff lacked standing, that claim preclusion and
issue preclusion barred his lawsuit, that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred his § 1983 claim,
that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, that plaintiff may not bring a private action
under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), and that he failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. On June 1, 2016, the court issued an Opinion and Order ("Order") granting defendants'
motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

On June 17, 2016, plaintiff filed this

motion for reconsideration of the court's Order, filed as an "Objection to Opinion and Order to
Dismiss." (ECF No. 36.) For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is denied.

1

Legal Standards
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly discuss motions for
reconsideration. Allen v. Nw. Permanente, P.C., No. 3:12-cv-0402-ST, 2012 WL 5996935, at *1
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2012). However, two rules contemplate a situation where the court may revisit
prior decisions and order them amended, rescinded, or reversed. Rule 59(e), 60(b) (2016). After
the court has entered a final judgment in a matter, a party may seek relief from that judgment
"under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or
Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment)." Allen, 2012 WL 5996935, at *1 (quoting Sch. Dist. No. JJ,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Rule 60(b) provides that a court may "relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
1

Plaintiff requested oral argument on his motion. The court finds this motion appropriate
for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-l(d)(l).
Page 2 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

(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 ... , 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."
Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) does not articulate a test to determine when a comi should reconsider a
prior decision, but comis have determined that reconsideration under Rule 59( e) is "appropriate
if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed a clear error
or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) ifthere is an intervening change in controlling
law." Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2006); Kana Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Under either rule, "a motion for reconsideration
should accomplish two goals: (1) it should demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider
its prior decision and (2) set forth law or facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the comi
to reverse its prior decision." Romtec, et al. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., 08-06297-HO, 2011 WL
690633, at *8 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2011) (citing Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp.
429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996)).
When a paiiy moves for reconsideration based on new evidence, the comi applies the
saine test regardless of whether the motion is brought under Rule 59 or Rule 60. Jones v.

Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990). "Under this test the movant must show the
evidence (1) existed at the time of the [original decision], (2) could not have been discovered
through due diligence, and (3) was of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have
been likely to change the disposition of the case." Jones, 921 F.2d at 878 (internal quotation
marks omitted).

Page 3 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources."

Kana Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted.

Twentieth

Century-Fox Film Corp.v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980).
Discussion
The court has carefully reviewed the entire record and the briefs in this matter, and finds
that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does not provide reason under Rule 59(e) or Rule
60(b) to reconsider the court's Order.
inadvertence,

surpnse,

or

Specifically, plaintiffs brief does not allege mistake,

excusable

neglect;

newly

discovered

evidence;

fraud,

misrepresentation or misconduct by defendants; that the judgment is void; or any other reason
that justifies relief. See Rule 60(b). Nor has plaintiff shown that the court committed a clear
error, an intervening change in controlling law, or that error, or that the initial decision was
manifestly unjust.

See Sissoko, 440 F.3d at 1153-54; Kana Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

Rather, plaintiffs motion reiterates points raised in his response to defendants' motion to
dismiss.

(See ECF Nos. 20, 36, 41.)

Plaintiff also raises arguments regarding Eleventh

Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. The court considered these issues and arguments
in its June 1, 2016 Order. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on
these issues during motion practice, and the court will not reconsider them now. In sum, because
plaintiff has failed to provide adequate grounds for reconsideration of the court's Order, his
motion is denied.
!!Ill
//Ill
!!Ill

Page 4 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

Conclusion

After careful consideration ofrecord and briefs, plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 36) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2016.

1

JQHN V.ACOSTA
1
United SJates Magistrate Judge
1

"-'

Page 5 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER