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)

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