Storm v. Correctional Medical Services et al, No. 1:2010cv00319 - Document 96 (D. Idaho 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 92 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RICKIE STORM, Case No. 1:10-cv-00319-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, n/k/a CORIZON, INC.; MICHAEL TAKAGI, P.A.; CATHY FITZGERALD, P.A.; DR. LOIS ADRIAN; DR. PATMAS; SETH YOURKETTER, P.A.; CARTNEY RICH; CONNIE SMOCK; ANITA TRAVIS; LARRY L. HYNES; JAN EPP; DIANA OBENAUER; AND JEFF SHAHAN, Defendants. On September 18, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this civil rights action. (Dkt. 90, 91.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Dkt. 92.) Reconsideration of a final judgment under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). A losing party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters or to MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 raise arguments that could have been raised before the entry of judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). As a result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of fact or law; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence; (3) reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in the law. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff s Motion is nothing more than a disagreement with the Court s legal analysis and an attempt to relitigate the issues already decided against him. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 92) is DENIED. DATED: March 12, 2014 Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2