Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jaime Arias-Maldonado v. D.K. Sisto

November 2, 2011

JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
D.K. SISTO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "(1) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE OCTOBER 5, 2011 JUDGMENT; (2) THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED; AND (3) THE JUNE 20, 2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BE SET ASIDE"

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, pro se prisoner Jaime Arias-Maldonado ("Plaintiff") asserts that V.D. Brunsfield, Cpt. Arthur, and K. Kesterson (collectively "Defendants") transferred him from California State Prison, Solano ("CSPSolano") to Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tallahatchie, Mississippi ("TCCF") on the basis of race. On October 5, 2011, the court entered an Order

(1) Denying Plaintiff's Petition for Out of Time 30-day Extension, and (2) Adopting the June 20, 2011 Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be Granted (the "October 5 Order").

Judgment was subsequently entered.

On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion titled "(1) Motion to Alter or Amend the October 5, 2011 Judgment; (2) that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied; and (3) the June 20, 2011 F&R be Set Aside." Because the court has already adopted the June 20, 2011 F&R and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and judgment has been entered, the court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Based on the following, the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND*fn1

On August 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed this action, asserting that Defendants transferred him from CSP-Solano to TCCF on the basis of race. See Doc. No. 17, SAC at 4-5; see also Doc. No. 26, Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part the Sept. 23, 2009 F&R at 2.*fn2

On May 2, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 73, and United States Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren entered his June 20, 2011 F&R, recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Doc. No. 76. On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a thirty-day extension to file an Objection to the June 20, 2011 F&R, which the court granted. Doc. Nos. 77 and 78.

Plaintiff filed his Objection to the June 20, 2011 F&R on August 12, 2011, Doc. No. 79, and Defendants filed their Response on August 26, 2011. Doc. No. 80. The October 5 Order followed, finding that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Doc. No. 84.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, the court elects to decide this matter without a hearing.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. Because no specific grounds are listed in the Rule, the district court has "considerable discretion" in granting or denying the motion. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam).

A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted 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.'" Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.