Chaides v. Utah State Prison et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER denying 40 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. This action remains closed. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 1/2/2020. (jds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DANIEL R. CHAIDES,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

B. STRONG et al.,

Case No. 2:17-CV-1033 JNP

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

District Judge Jill N. Parrish

On August 16, 2019, concluding Plaintiff had been prejudicially unresponsive in his
litigation, the court dismissed his case. (Doc. No. 39.) On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a
letter asking that his case be reopened, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend
the judgment. (Doc. No. 40.) Plaintiff asserted logistical difficulties in appropriately responding
to the court’s orders and promised to submit a change of address after a move to a halfway house
(planned for September 17, 2019). (Id.) Plaintiff still did not even try to respond to Defendants’
summary-judgment motion, (Doc. No. 32). And, Plaintiff has not since corresponded with the
Court, including to submit his change of address.
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 only cites
logistical difficulties. Nor has he followed up with a change of address, which shows a continued
failure to prosecute—which prompted the dismissal order to begin with. Plaintiff thus does not
meet the exacting standard for relief under Rule 59(e); the Court’s August 16, 2019 Order and
Judgment stand.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion is DENIED. (Doc. No. 40.)
This action remains closed.
DATED January 2, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

JUDGE JILL N. PARRISH
United States District Court

2