(PC) Allen v. Harris

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 ANTHONY LEE ALLEN JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-0688 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. 31) 14 A.W. HARRIS, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Anthony Lee Allen sought to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The Court found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and 19 dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. (Docs. 28, 29.) The Court entered judgment on 20 January 4, 2024. (Doc. 30.) 21 On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.” (Doc. 31.) 22 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider an unspecified order, stating: “I ask the Court alter or amend 23 this judgement based on odd[s] being stacked against me. I was unable to meet legal deadlines 24 and properly address certain motions based on my mail being tampered with . . .” (Id. at 1.) The 25 Court infers that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration order adopting the magistrate judge’s Findings 26 and Recommendations and dismissing the case. Because the motion was filed within 28 days of 27 the order, the Court construes the motion as made pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of 28 Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 1 Rule 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its judgment. “A district 2 court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, 3 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood v. 4 Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted) (emphasis 5 in original). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 6 [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 7 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water 8 Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). To succeed, a 9 party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its 10 prior order. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 11 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 13 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 14 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in 15 the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 16 Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883 ). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old 17 matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 18 judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 , 486 n. 5 (2008) (internal quotation marks 19 omitted). 20 Plaintiff does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning his failure to state a 21 cognizable claim, which formed the basis of the Court’s order dismissing the action. (See 22 generally Docs. 29, 31.) Rather, liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to contend that due to mail 23 tampering he was unable to timely file unspecified pleadings that would have prevented dismissal 24 of his case. (Doc. 31.) In effect, Plaintiff contends that the Court should grant reconsideration 25 based on excusable neglect. 26 However, “mistake or excusable neglect” is not a recognized basis for Rule 59(e) 27 reconsideration. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing 28 manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence or previously unavailable evidence, 1 manifest injustice, and intervening change in controlling law as cognizable grounds for Rule 2 59(e) reconsideration); see also Mendoza v. Garland, 2023 WL 6050581 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3 15, 2023) (denying Rule 59(e) motion based on mistake or excusable neglect). Although Plaintiff 4 claims his mail tampered with, Plaintiff does not set forth any discernible basis as to how the 5 alleged tampering affected his case. Indeed, Plaintiff timely filed the amended complaint that the 6 Court screened and found was not cognizable. It is unclear why Plaintiff’s alleged inability to file 7 an unspecified pleading warrants reconsideration of the Court’s determination that the failed to 8 state a claim, and that further leave to amend was futile. 9 Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege facts that support a conclusion that manifest injustice 10 would result if the Court denied the motion. “Courts of the Ninth Circuit generally treat ‘manifest 11 injustice’ as very nearly synonymous with ‘clear error,’ defining manifest injustice as any ‘error 12 in the trial court that is direct, obvious and observable, such as a defendant’s guilty plea that is 13 involuntary.’” Greenspan v. Fieldstone Fin. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2018 WL 4945214 , at *20 (D. Or. 14 Aug. 22, 2018); see also In re Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Ass'n, 302 B.R. 682 , 683 15 (Banks. C.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)) (defining manifest 16 injustice under Rule 59(e)). “Manifest injustice,” as it pertains to Rule 59(e), is not to be used as 17 a Trojan Horse to breach a court order for a second chance at litigating the same issue. All. for 18 Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv., 2020 WL 7082687 , at *2 (D. Idaho Dec. 3, 2020). 19 Because Plaintiff did not identify any facts to indicate a “direct, obvious and observable” error in 20 the trial court that constitute manifest injustice, he fails to meet his burden to justify 21 reconsideration on that basis. 22 Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to present any newly discovered evidence, show the Court 23 committed clear error, or argue an intervening change in controlling law that would necessitate 24 alteration or amendment of the judgment. Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121 . Rather, Plaintiff merely 25 contends he was unable to timely file some unspecified pleading that would have prevented 26 dismissal, which is too vague to establish good cause for reconsideration. See Gates v. Colvin, — 27 — 2017 WL 8220232 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) (“Mere disagreement with the result does not 28 justify the filing of a Rule 59(e) motion”), citing U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah 1 | River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Mendoza, 2023 WL 6050581 at *2. Thus, 2 | Plaintiff has not established “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 59 sufficient to warrant 3 | reconsideration of the dismissal order. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff's motion to 4 | alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 31) is DENIED. — 5 — 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: _March 12, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —