Medina v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's post-judgment 22 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. This action remains closed. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 4/21/2020. (eat)

Case 2:18-cv-00148-DAK Document 24 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
HILARIO MEDINA,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

ROLLIN COOK,

Case No. 2:18-CV-148 DAK

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

District Judge Dale A. Kimball

On January 14, 2020, concluding Plaintiff had been prejudicially unresponsive in his
litigation, the Court dismissed his case. (ECF No. 20.) On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff submitted,
“Motion to Reconsider,” which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend the judgment.
(ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff asserts primarily mail difficulties kept him from appropriately responding
to Court orders. (Id.) But this does not square with the relevant documents on the docket, all
painstakingly set forth in the Court’s dismissal order. (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiff responded to the Court’s May 24, 2019 order requiring an amended complaint
by asking for an extension, which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 14-16.) Plaintiff also responded
to the Court’s November 13, 2019 order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 18-19.) He then responded
after the Court’s dismissal order. (ECF Nos. 20-23.) From the Court’s perspective, each time it
communicated with Plaintiff over the past year, Plaintiff was responsive, even if delayed, except
that he just never--even now (more than two years after originally filing his case)--provided the
one document that was needed and required--an amended complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-00148-DAK Document 24 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2

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
but cite logistical difficulties. Nor has he followed up with a proposed amended complaint,
which shows a continued failure to prosecute--and 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
January 14, 2020 Order and Judgment stand. (ECF Nos 20-21.)
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 22.) This
action remains closed.
DATED this 21st day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

JUDGE DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Court

2