Lamon v. Adams et al
Filing
90
ORDER DENYING Rule 59(e) Motions for Reconsideration 87 , 88 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/2/11. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BARRY LOUIS LAMON,
10
11
CASE NO: 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTIONS
FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
(Docs. 87, 88)
12
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
I.
16
Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
17
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 21, 2007,
18
and is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2009. (Docs. 1, 21, 30).
19
On June 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which recommended
20
dismissing the action as time-barred. (Doc. 79). On July 6, 2011, the Court adopted the findings
21
and recommendations and dismissed the action. (Docs. 85, 86). On July 20, 2011, and August 3,
22
2011, Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
23
Civil Procedure. (Docs. 87, 88).
Procedural Background
24
II.
25
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to have the court amend its
26
judgment within twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). ‘Since specific
27
grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable
28
discretion in granting or denying the motion.’ Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th
Legal Standard and Analsysis
1
1
Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per
2
curiam)). But amending a judgment after its entry remains ‘an extraordinary remedy which should
3
be used sparingly.’ Id. In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may
4
be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
5
judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable
6
evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is
7
justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Id.
8
In Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in stating that
9
Plaintiff filed objections on June 29, 2011, when Plaintiff asserts that he, in fact, filed objections on
10
June 24, 2011. (Doc. 87 at 2-3; Doc. 88 at 2-3). Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court failed to
11
consider Plaintiff’s arguments in his objection because the Court did not reiterate Plaintiff’s
12
objections in its order to adopt. (Doc. 87 at 4; Doc. 88 at 3-4). Although the Court did not reiterate
13
Plaintiff’s arguments in his objections in its order adopting the findings and recommendations, the
14
Court did review Plaintiff objections and determined that the findings and recommendations were
15
supported by proper legal analysis. (Doc. 85).
16
III.
17
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to reconsideration
18
pursuant to Rule 59(e). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds its order adopting
19
the findings and recommendations and dismissing the action as barred by res judicata is supported
20
by the record and by proper analysis.
21
Conclusions and Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration filed
22
on July 20, 2011, and August 3, 2011, are DENIED. (Docs. 87, 88).
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
b9ed48
November 2, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
