Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00948-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL )

INSTITUTION, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 06-CV-0948 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT

(Document #6) 

On July 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against prison officials. On September 28,

2007, the court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff had not exhausted available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108, 1120 (9 Cir. 2003). The Clerk of the Court entered judgment the same day. On th

October 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proof of service attached to this motion indicates it was

given to prison officials for mailing on October 5, 2007.

Rule 59(e) allows a motion to alter or amend judgment if filed no later than 10 days after

entry of judgment. Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district

court is presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or

made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in

controlling law. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9 Cir. 2001); School Dist.

th

Case 1:06-cv-00948-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 12/20/07 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

No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). This showing is th

a “high hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9 Cir. 2001). A judgment is not th

properly reopened “absent highly unusual circumstances.” Id. Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9 Cir. 2000). th

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion. The motion contains no argument, evidence,

or legal authority on why amendment or alternation to the judgment is necessary. Thus,

Plaintiff’s motion fails on its face.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00948-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 2