Bacon v. Winder et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTIONTO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's post-judgment motion is DENIED. 94 This action remains closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/15/19. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MICHAEL A. BACON,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

TODD R. WILCOX et al.,

Case No. 2:15-CV-145 TS

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart

On September 25, 2019, concluding Defendant Gee was not affirmatively linked to a
civil-rights violation and Defendants Backman, Wilcox, Lewis and Lindley were not deliberately
indifferent toward Plaintiff, the Court granted Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. (Doc.
No. 92.) Plaintiff then filed objections, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend
the judgment. (Doc. No. 94.) Plaintiff specifically asserts that the Court erred in its conclusion
that the undisputed material facts do not support Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Backman.
(Id.)
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence that could not have been obtained previously
through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete
v. Does, 2014 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion under
Rule 59(e) is not to be used to rehash arguments that have been
addressed or to present supporting facts that could have been
presented in earlier filings. Id. Reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th
Cir. 2004); Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242

(10th Cir. 2006); Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills, 643 F. App'x
555, 562 (6th Cir. 2016) (relief under R. 59(e) is rare).
Blake v. Jpay, No. 18-3146-SAC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150310, at *4-5 (D. Kan. Sept. 4,
2019).
Plaintiff has not shown any of these three grounds for relief exist here. He does nothing
more than rehash arguments that the Court decided against him. Plaintiff thus does not meet the
exacting standard for relief under Rule 59(e); the Court’s September 25, 2019 Order and
Judgment stand.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion is DENIED. (Doc. No. 94.)
This action remains closed.
DATED this 15th day of October, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court

2