UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 15, 2007
ALTON B. HORNBACK, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [D.E. # 13]
Petitioner Alton B. Hornback ("Petitioner") petitioned this Court pro se to issue a Writ of Mandamus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1361, ordering Respondent United States of America ("Respondent") via the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to correct his patent. On May 15, 2007, this Court granted Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner now seeks a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 15, 2007, Order. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.
Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its previous order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) "is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1988)). None of these circumstances apply here, Petitioner merely seeks for this Court to change its mind in Petitioner's favor. The Petitioner presents no newly discovered evidence to justify reconsideration. Similarly, the Court finds that Rule 60(b) has no application here either. Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from final judgment on the basis of "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; ....(6) or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This has not been shown and does not apply.
Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 7.1.i requires a party seeking reconsideration to show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Petitioner has failed to fulfill this procedural requirement. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 13) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.