Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANNY JAMES COHEA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L. 

BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R 

YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS, 

A GOLD, and S. SCARSELLA, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB 

ORDER 

 On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order, (ECF 

No. 338), denying Plaintiff’s August 13, 2015 motion to vacate 

the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Nine 

days later, on September 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply brief 

concerning his Rule 59(e) motion. (Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 339.) 

 Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the September 8, 

2015 order so the Court may consider his reply brief. (Pl.’s Req. 

Vacate Sept. 4, 2015 Order, ECF No. 345.) Plaintiff asserts the 

September 8, 2015 order “deprived Plaintiff . . . his 

constitutional statutory right to file a “reply” to Defendants’ 

‘September 03, 2015 Opposition in violation of this Court’s Local 

Rule 230(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.” (Id. at 2.) 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 346 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

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 

27 

28 

2 

 Plaintiff’s reconsideration request is GRANTED, and the 

September 8, 2015 order is withdrawn. Therefore, the court now 

decides Plaintiff’s August 13, 2015 Rule 59(e) motion after 

reviewing Plaintiff’s reply brief. 

 “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party 

may move to have the court amend its judgment within twenty-eight 

days after entry of the judgment.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 

634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). However, “amending a 

judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which 

should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

In general, there are four basic grounds upon 

which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) 

if such motion is necessary to correct 

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 

judgment rests; (2) if such motion is 

necessary to present newly discovered or 

previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such 

motion is necessary to prevent manifest 

injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 

justified by an intervening change in 

controlling law. 

Id. 

 Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to amend 

the judgment on any of the referenced grounds. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 333), is DENIED. 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 

 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 346 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2