UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2011
D. SILBAUGH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brian Dent ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner prosecuting a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After his remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, Plaintiff's action proceeded on the first claim in his Third Amended Complaint. In this last remaining claim, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant H. Murthy ("Defendant") filed a false rules violation report against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff's acts. This Court granted Defendant's subsequent Motion for Summary Judgment disposing of that claim, and judgment was entered on March 31, 2011.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Motion"). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.*fn1
A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is generally embodied in the law of the case doctrine. That doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved in ongoing litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 36 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989).
"[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying [a motion to amend or alter a judgment]." McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir 1999). "It is appropriate for a court to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if '(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.'"
Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 567 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff has not offered any newly discovered evidence, nor has he argued that there has been an intervening change in the law. Rather, Plaintiff asserts only his disagreement with the Court's decision to grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to enter judgment in Defendant's favor. Disagreement with the Court is insufficient to justify alteration or amendment of the judgment, and Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (ECF No. 76) is thus DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.