Guzman-Rivera v. Lucena-Zabala et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER. DENIED 22 MOTION for Reconsideration of Opinion & Order and Judgment issued on July 1, 2009. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 8/5/2009.(LB) Modified on 8/6/2009 as to link title(ab).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO M IG U E L GUZMÁN-RIVERA Plaintiff v. Civil No. 08-1897 (SEC) K E R M IT LUCENA-ZABALA; ZAIDA C A M A C H O -R O SS Y ; ANABELLE NUÑEZU B A R R I; LÁZARO SERRANO-CID; Z U L M A R IE URRUTIA-VÉLEZ; OJEL R O D R ÍG U E Z -T O R R E S ; PUERTO RICO E X A M IN IN G BOARD OF ACCOUNTANTS D e f e n d a n ts

O P IN IO N and ORDER P en d ing before this Court is Plaintiff Miguel Guzmán-Rivera's ("Plaintiff") Motion for R econsid eratio n of this Court's Opinion and Order of July 1, 2009, (Docket # 22) and CoD efendants Kermit Lucena-Zabala, Zaida Camacho-Rossy, Anabelle Nuñez-Ubarri, Lázaro S e rra no -C id , and Zulmarie Urrutia-Vélez's (collectively "Defendants") opposition thereto (D ocket # 23). After reviewing the parties' filings, and the applicable law, for the reasons explain ed below, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Factual Background T he facts of this case are set forth in this Court's Opinion and Oder of July 1st, 2009. D ocket # 20. In said Opinion and Order, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Id. On July 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present motion, arguing that Defendants are not entitled to ab s o lu te immunity due to their "complete lack of adherence to the established due process safeguards" during the administrative hearings held before them. Docket # 22. Defendants opposed. Docket # 23.

1 2 3 4 5

CIVIL NO. 08-1897 (SEC) S ta n d a rd of Review

Page 2

F ED . R. CIV. P. 59 (e) allows a party, within ten (10) days of the entry of judgment, to file a motion seeking to alter or amend said judgment. The rule itself does not specify on what grounds the relief sought may be granted, and courts have ample discretion in deciding whether

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

to grant or deny such a motion. Venegas-Hernández v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1 st C ir. 2004) (citations omitted). In exercising that discretion, courts must balance the need for giving finality to judgments with the need to render a just decision. Id. (citing Edward H. Bolin C o. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993)). Despite the lack of specific guidance by the rule on that point, the First Circuit has stated that a Rule 59(e) motion "must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence." F.D.I.C. v. World U niv., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). Rule 59(e) may not, however, be used to raise arguments that could and should have been presented before judgment was entered, nor to advance new legal theories. B ogosonian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55, 72 (1 st Cir. 2003). A p p licable Law and Analysis P lain tiff first requests that this Court amend its July 1st, 2009 Opinion and Order. S pecifically, he asks that the dismissal be without prejudice so that he may pursue this claim at the state court level. However, upon reviewing the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff's claims

19 are made exclusively under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 enforceab le through 42 U.S.C. 1983. Thus, Plaintiff did not set forth any state law claims before this Court. As a result, there are no supplemental state law claims to be dismissed. P lain tiff further requests that this Court reconsider its ruling dismissing the claims against D efendants in their personal capacities. According to Plaintiff, the extremely deficient manner in which Defendants conducted the administrative hearings deprives them of absolute immunity. N otw ith stan d ing , as previously stated, under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), the First Circuit has de te rm in ed that a motion for reconsideration "must either clearly establish a manifest error of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CIVIL NO. 08-1897 (SEC)

Page 3

law or must present newly discovered evidence." F.D.I.C., 978 F.2d at16(citing Fed. Deposit Ins. C orp., 781 F.2d at 1268). In his motion, Plaintiff does neither of these. Instead, Plaintiff rehashes the same arguments made in his original opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, which have already been considered, and rejected by this Court. See Docket # 20. As such, P laintiff's request is DENIED. C o n c lu s io n B ased on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. S an Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5th day of August, 2009. S /S a lva d o r E. Casellas S alv ad o r E. Casellas U .S . District Judge