(HC) Kanongata'a v. Jones ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Grame Kali Kanongata’a, No. 2:20-cv-0973 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 Scott Jones, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed additional objections to the magistrate judge’s findings 18 and recommendations, ECF No. 15, after this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 19 recommendations following a de novo review of the case. ECF No. 13. After reviewing the new 20 document, the court finds this most akin to a motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment 21 under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Although petitioner does not identify the basis of his 22 motion, the court construes it as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under 59(e) because 23 it was filed within the 28-day window required by Rule 59. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 24 Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight 25 days of the entry of the judgment. Although the Rule does not list specific grounds for such a 26 motion, the Ninth Circuit has said that a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if “(1) the district 27 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 28 made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 1 controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). This court 2 has “wide discretion” when considering such a motion. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. 3 Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The rule provides “an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be 4 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enters., 5 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting James Wm. Moore et al., 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). A party filing a motion for reconsideration 7 should not ask the court “to rethink what the Court has already thought through” simply because 8 of a disagreement with the result of that thought process. Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan 9 Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). 10 Here, petitioner identifies no new facts, extraordinary circumstances, or other grounds to 11 justify relief from the court’s prior order. 12 Petitioner’s request for a new judgment, ECF No. 15, is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: November 30, 2020. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28