UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 2, 2011
BARRY LOUIS LAMON,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docs. 87, 88)
I. Procedural Background
Barry Louis Lamon ("Plaintiff') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 21, 2007, and is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2009. (Docs. 1, 21, 30). On June 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which recommended dismissing the action as time-barred. (Doc. 79). On July 6, 2011, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed the action. (Docs. 85, 86). On July 20, 2011, and August 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docs. 87, 88).
II. Legal Standard and Analsysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to have the court amend its judgment within twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 'Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.' Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per curiam)). But amending a judgment after its entry remains 'an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.' Id. In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Id.
In Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in stating that Plaintiff filed objections on June 29, 2011, when Plaintiff asserts that he, in fact, filed objections on June 24, 2011. (Doc. 87 at 2-3; Doc. 88 at 2-3). Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court failed to consider Plaintiff's arguments in his objection because the Court did not reiterate Plaintiff's objections in its order to adopt. (Doc. 87 at 4; Doc. 88 at 3-4). Although the Court did not reiterate Plaintiff's arguments in his objections in its order adopting the findings and recommendations, the Court did review Plaintiff objections and determined that the findings and recommendations were supported by proper legal analysis. (Doc. 85).
III. Conclusions and Order
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds its order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing the action as barred by res judicata is supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration filed on July 20, 2011, and August 3, 2011, are DENIED. (Docs. 87, 88).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.