(PC) Armentero v. Kramer et al, No. 2:2006cv01838 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/05/10 recommending that plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment 73 be denied. Motion to Alter the Judgment 73 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Armentero v. Kramer et al Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-06-1838 GEB KJM P C. LEVAN, et al., Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 27, 2010, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary 18 judgment and entered judgment, based on earlier grants of summary judgment for defendants. 19 On September 9, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff argues that defendant Taylor failed to 21 demonstrate that she was not responsible for his misclassification; he does not address this 22 court’s recommendation and the district court’s order granting her motion for summary judgment 23 (docket nos. 63, 67). He also complains that this court denied his motion for the appointment of 24 counsel and takes issue with the denial of motions “during the period from August 17, 2006 25 through August, 27, 2010.” 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 The Ninth Circuit has said there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 3 1) the motion is “necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;” 3) the motion is necessary to “prevent manifest injustice;” or 4) there is an “intervening change in controlling law.” 4 5 6 Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 7 2003). Plaintiff has not satisfied any of these prerequisites to the granting of his motion. 8 9 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment (docket no. 73) be denied. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 12 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 15 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 16 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 17 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: November 5, 2010. 19 20 21 22 23 2 24 arme1838.59(e) 25 26 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.
