Noyola v. Doe et al

Filing 122

ORDER DENYING 120 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (AY, Case Administrator)**3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Mario Noyola, Prisoner ID: 767684)

Download PDF
FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 1 Apr 13, 2018 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. MARIO NOYOLA, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 4:16-CV-5041-EFS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT v. JOHN ROGERS; JEFFREY A. UTTECHT; STEVEN HAMMOND; DAN PACHOLKE; DICK MORGAN; JOHN REIDY; and A DELEONDURAN, 12 Defendants. 13 14 On February 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for 15 Summary Judgment and directed the Clerk’s Office to enter judgment in 16 favor of Defendants. See ECF No. 116 & 117. Presently before the Court, 17 without oral argument, is Plaintiff Mario Noyola’s motion to alter or 18 amend that judgment. ECF No. 120. For the reasons articulated below, 19 Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 I. Legal Standard 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a 22 motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after it is entered. 23 A motion under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual 24 circumstances, 25 discovered 26 intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 unless evidence, the district committed court clear is error, presented or if with there ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 1 newly is an 1 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). An 2 amendment of judgment under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy, to 3 be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of 4 judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 5 2003) 6 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the Court. Navajo 7 Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 8 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). (internal citation omitted). II. 9 Whether to grant a motion for Discussion 10 Mr. Noyola argues that the Court should amend the judgment against 11 him because “it misunderstood the facts, applied plaintiff’s arguments 12 contrary to controlling law and made an improper determination as to 13 the truth and weight of evidence.” ECF No. 120 at 3. He further argues 14 that the Court improperly dismissed his claims for injunctive relief as 15 moot, improperly dismissed his claims against Defendants in their 16 official capacities, and improperly concluded that Defendants were 17 protected by qualified immunity.1 Id. 18 Mr. Noyola has alleged no newly discovered evidence nor has he 19 identified an intervening change in the controlling law. And, after 20 reviewing the record and controlling authority, the Court concludes that 21 it did not clearly err. Moreover, the Court finds that no injustice will 22 result by denying Mr. Noyola’s motion. 23 24 25 26 1 Mr. Noyola also alleges the Court made improper determination as to the “truth and weight” of the evidence. ECF No. 120 at 9. On the contrary, as directed by controlling law, the Court viewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Noyola. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 37880 (2007). Even doing so, the Court concluded that Defendants were protected by qualified immunity and granted their motion for summary judgment. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. ECF No. 120, is DENIED. 3 4 Plaintiff Mario Noyola’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, 2. The Court recognizes that Mr. Noyola has expressed a desire 5 to preserve his right of appeal. See ECF Nos. 118 & 119. As 6 such, the Court warns Mr. Noyola that pursuant to Federal 7 Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) and (a)(1)(A), Mr. 8 Noyola must file any notice of appeal of this Order or the 9 underlying judgment within 30 days of the entry of this 10 Order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Mr. Noyola and defense counsel. DATED this 12th _ day of April 2018. 14 15 ___s/Edward F. Shea_ EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2016\16-CV-5041;Noyola.ord.den.mot.alter.judgment.lc02.docx ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?