(PC) Jones v. Wong ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR., No. 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAM WONG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Arthur Glenn Jones, Sr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 18 for Reconsideration of the Court’s December 15, 2020 Order (ECF No. 127), which granted 19 summary judgment and dismissed this action.1 (ECF No. 129.) For the reasons set forth below, 20 Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 1 Plaintiff’s Motion is titled “Plaintiff’s Reconsideration Motion Into Summary Judgment 27 Without Prejudice to Dismiss Federal Civil Claims and Declaration in Opposition and Legitimate Rubric Rules with Due Suitable Merits of Plaintiff’s Solicit Rights,” which the Court construes as 28 a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action seeking relief 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The parties filed cross-motions for 4 summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 83, 94, 95.) On July 14, 2020, the magistrate judge issued 5 Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and grant 6 Defendants’ motions with respect to the federal claims, declining to exercise supplemental 7 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. (ECF No. 120.) On December 15, 2020, the Court 8 adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed the action. (ECF No. 127.) 9 Judgment was entered the same day. (ECF No. 128.) On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the 10 instant Motion for Reconsideration.2 (ECF No. 129.) On February 1, 2021, Defendants filed an 11 Opposition. (ECF No. 130.) 12 II. STANDARD OF LAW 13 The Court may grant reconsideration under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 (“Rule”) 59(e) or 60(b). See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A 15 motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than 28 days after the 16 entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a 17 motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of entry of 18 judgment. Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 489–90 (9th Cir. 2016); see Am. Ironworks & 19 Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). Otherwise, it is 20 treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s motion was 21 filed within twenty-eight days of entry of Judgment and is therefore construed as a motion to alter 22 or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). (See ECF Nos. 128, 129.) 23 Rule 59(e) does not list specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter, therefore the 24 district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 25 Herron (Allstate Ins. Co.), 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 26 27 2 Since Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, his filing date was determined pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274, 276 (1988) (a court document 28 is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner delivers it to prison officials to be mailed to the court). 1 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999)). Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 2 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 3 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 4 change in the controlling law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 (emphasis in original). Indeed, 5 “reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used 6 sparingly.” Id. at 1255 n.1. Further, “[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise 7 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 8 earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. (Marlyn), 9 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted). 10 “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 11 (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment 12 rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 13 evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 14 justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. 15 Additionally, where the motion for reconsideration pertains to an order granting or 16 denying a prior motion, Local Rule 230(j) requires the moving party to “[identify] what new or 17 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 18 such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and [explain] why the facts or 19 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 20 III. ANALYSIS 21 Plaintiff fails to advance any argument that establishes he is entitled to relief under Rule 22 59(e). Plaintiff’s arguments do not constitute “newly discovered or previously unavailable 23 evidence” or “an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; E.D. 24 Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). Rather, the Motion for Reconsideration simply repeats arguments made 25 in the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment and in Plaintiff’s Objections to the 26 magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (Compare ECF Nos. 98–99, 124 with ECF 27 No. 129); see also Marlyn, 571 F.3d at 880. As such, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of 28 /// 1 | the Local Rules or demonstrate that the “extraordinary remedy” he seeks is warranted here. 2 | Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; E.D. Cal. L.R. 230G)(3)-4). 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 5 | (ECF No. 129.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | DATED: February 10, 2021 □□ ) 8 5 ! the 10 Unived States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28