(PC) Arline v. Clark, No. 1:2007cv01097 - Document 97 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Rule 59(e) Motion for Reconsideration 95 ; ORDER Clarifying 93 Order Adoopting Findings and Recommendations 96 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/13/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Arline v. Clark Doc. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR., CASE NO: 1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GBC (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 v. 11 Doc. 95 KEN CLARK, 12 ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 13 / Doc. 96 14 15 On July 27, 2007, Keith Duane Arline, Jr. (“Plaintiff’), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 16 in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that 17 Defendant Clark violated the Eighth Amendment by denying Plaintiff outdoor exercise during 18 modified programming at the prison facility. Doc. 1. On September 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge 19 filed Findings and Recommendations recommending granting Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment. Doc. 91. On October 20, 2011, the Court issued an Order Adopting Findings and 21 Recommendations, dismissed the action, and ordered the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Doc. 22 93. On October 20, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered a final judgment in favor of the Defendant. 23 Doc. 94. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 95. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 25 Clarification of the Court’s Findings and Recommendations. Doc. 96.1 26 27 28 1 In addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification as to whether he may file an appeal, the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations was a dismissal order, which directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Plaintiff may now file an appeal of this decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to have the court amend its 2 judgment within twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Since specific 3 grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable 4 discretion in granting or denying the motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 5 Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per 6 curiam)). But amending a judgment after its entry remains “an extraordinary remedy which should 7 be used sparingly.” Id. In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may 8 be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 9 judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 10 evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 11 justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Id. 12 In Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff reiterates the law for denial of exercise 13 and argues that his case meets the Eighth Amendment standard. However, Plaintiff fails to offer 14 affirmative evidence to contradict that modified programming was necessary and that concrete yards 15 were not a feasible alternative. 16 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to reconsideration 17 pursuant to Rule 59(e). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that its Order 18 Adopting Findings and Recommendations, dismissing the action, and closing the case is supported 19 by the record and by proper analysis. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed 21 on October 31, 2011 is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: b9ed48 December 13, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
