Noyola v. Doe et al
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
Apr 13, 2018
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
JOHN ROGERS; JEFFREY A. UTTECHT;
STEVEN HAMMOND; DAN PACHOLKE; DICK
MORGAN; JOHN REIDY; and A DELEONDURAN,
On February 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and directed the Clerk’s Office to enter judgment in
favor of Defendants. See ECF No. 116 & 117. Presently before the Court,
without oral argument, is Plaintiff Mario Noyola’s motion to alter or
amend that judgment. ECF No. 120. For the reasons articulated below,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a
motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after it is entered.
A motion under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual
intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 1
F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). An
amendment of judgment under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy, to
be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the Court. Navajo
Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d
1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
Mr. Noyola argues that the Court should amend the judgment against
him because “it misunderstood the facts, applied plaintiff’s arguments
contrary to controlling law and made an improper determination as to
the truth and weight of evidence.” ECF No. 120 at 3. He further argues
that the Court improperly dismissed his claims for injunctive relief as
moot, improperly dismissed his claims against Defendants in their
official capacities, and improperly concluded that Defendants were
protected by qualified immunity.1 Id.
Mr. Noyola has alleged no newly discovered evidence nor has he
identified an intervening change in the controlling law. And, after
reviewing the record and controlling authority, the Court concludes that
it did not clearly err. Moreover, the Court finds that no injustice will
result by denying Mr. Noyola’s motion.
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
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
ECF No. 120, is DENIED.
Plaintiff Mario Noyola’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,
The Court recognizes that Mr. Noyola has expressed a desire
to preserve his right of appeal. See ECF Nos. 118 & 119. As
such, the Court warns Mr. Noyola that pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) and (a)(1)(A), Mr.
Noyola must file any notice of appeal of this Order or the
underlying judgment within 30 days of the entry of this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this
Order and provide copies to Mr. Noyola and defense counsel.
12th _ day of April 2018.
___s/Edward F. Shea_
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge
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?