Guzman-Rivera v. Lucena-Zabala et al, No. 3:2008cv01897 - Document 25 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. DENIED 22 MOTION for Reconsideration of Opinion & Order and Judgment issued on July 1, 2009. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 8/5/2009.(LB) Modified on 8/6/2009 as to link title(ab).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MIGUEL GUZMà N-RIVERA Plaintiff v. Civil No. 08-1897 (SEC) KERMIT LUCENA-ZABALA; ZAIDA CAMACHO-ROSSY; ANABELLE NUà EZUBARRI; Là ZARO SERRANO-CID; ZULMARIE URRUTIA-Và LEZ; OJEL RODRà GUEZ-TORRES; PUERTO RICO EXAMINING BOARD OF ACCOUNTANTS Defendants 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OPINION and ORDER Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Miguel Guzmán-Rivera s ( Plaintiff ) Motion for Reconsideration of this Court s Opinion and Order of July 1, 2009, (Docket # 22) and CoDefendants Kermit Lucena-Zabala, Zaida Camacho-Rossy, Anabelle Nuñez-Ubarri, Lázaro Serrano-Cid, and Zulmarie Urrutia-Vélez s (collectively Defendants ) opposition thereto (Docket # 23). After reviewing the parties filings, and the applicable law, for the reasons explained below, Defendants Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Factual Background The facts of this case are set forth in this Court s Opinion and Oder of July 1st, 2009. Docket # 20. In said Opinion and Order, this Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss. Id. On July 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present motion, arguing that Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity due to their complete lack of adherence to the established due process safeguards during the administrative hearings held before them. Docket # 22. Defendants opposed. Docket # 23. 1 CIVIL NO. 08-1897 (SEC) Page 2 2 3 4 Standard of Review F ED . R. C IV . P. 59 (e) allows a party, within ten (10) days of the entry of judgment, to file a motion seeking to alter or amend said judgment. The rule itself does not specify on what 5 grounds the relief sought may be granted, and courts have ample discretion in deciding whether 6 7 to grant or deny such a motion. Venegas-Hernández v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1 st Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). In exercising that discretion, courts must balance the need for 8 giving finality to judgments with the need to render a just decision. Id. (citing Edward H. Bolin 9 Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993)). Despite the lack of specific guidance by the 10 rule on that point, the First Circuit has stated that a Rule 59(e) motion must either clearly 11 establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence. F.D.I.C. v. World 12 Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 13 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). Rule 59(e) may not, however, be used to raise arguments that could 14 and should have been presented before judgment was entered, nor to advance new legal theories. 15 Bogosonian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55, 72 (1 st Cir. 2003). 16 17 Applicable Law and Analysis Plaintiff first requests that this Court amend its July 1st, 2009 Opinion and Order. Specifically, he asks that the dismissal be without prejudice so that he may pursue this claim at 18 the state court level. However, upon reviewing the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff s claims 19 are made exclusively under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 20 21 enforceable through 42 U.S.C. 1983. Thus, Plaintiff did not set forth any state law claims before this Court. As a result, there are no supplemental state law claims to be dismissed. 22 Plaintiff further requests that this Court reconsider its ruling dismissing the claims against 23 Defendants in their personal capacities. According to Plaintiff, the extremely deficient manner 24 in which Defendants conducted the administrative hearings deprives them of absolute immunity. 25 Notwithstanding, as previously stated, under FED. R. C IV . P. 59(e), the First Circuit has 26 determined that a motion for reconsideration must either clearly establish a manifest error of 1 CIVIL NO. 08-1897 (SEC) Page 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 law or must present newly discovered evidence. F.D.I.C., 978 F.2d at16(citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 781 F.2d at 1268). In his motion, Plaintiff does neither of these. Instead, Plaintiff rehashes the same arguments made in his original opposition to Defendant s motion to dismiss, which have already been considered, and rejected by this Court. See Docket # 20. As such, Plaintiff s request is DENIED. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5th day of August, 2009. S/Salvador E. Casellas Salvador E. Casellas U.S. District Judge

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.