Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01200/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01200-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1355 Petition for Return of Property

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOSEPH ROBERT COX, d.b.a. JOEKEN

FIREARMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY:

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,

FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES [A.T.F.], an

Agency thereof; ALCOHOL AND

TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE

BUREAU [A.T.T.T.], an Agency thereof;

R.A. [“RAY”] FRIEND, a Special Agent

therein [A.T.F.]; HEIDI PETERSON, a

Special Agent therein [A.T.F.]; JAMES D.

JEWELL, an Investigator therein

[A.T.T.T.]; TIM FOSTER, an Excise Tax

Auditor therein [A.T.T.T.]; TWENTY

UNKNOWN AGENTS [A.T.F. &

A.T.T.T.] 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1200-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Cox’s (“Cox”) Motion to Alter

Judgment (Doc. 23), filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Cox requests that the Court alter

the Court’s February 19, 2008 Order dismissing Petitioner’s Rule 41 (g) Motion for Return

of Seized Property. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for determination.

///

Case 2:07-cv-01200-SMM Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 4
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 Contrary to the assertion of Plaintiff, the Court took nothing at face value, instead,

it based its decision on the documents before it and binding legal authority. 

2 Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter a judgment must be filed no later than 10

days after the entry of the judgment. Plaintiff satisfied this requirement by filing the motion

on February 29, 2008.

- 2 -

Relevant Background1

On February 19, 2008, the Court ruled that, based on the fully briefed petition and

corresponding evidence before the Court, Cox failed to establish that this Court had equitable

jurisdiction to decide the merits of Plaintiff’s petition. The Court found that Plaintiff had

failed to satisfy the prerequisites set forth in Ramsden v. U.S., 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.1993),

that must be satisfied before the Court may invoke its equitable jurisdiction. In particular,

Plaintiff failed to establish that the government exhibited callous disregard for his

constitutional rights, that he failed to establish a specific need for the original documents, and

that he failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm if the seized property is not

returned. Consequently, without satisfying the mandates of Ramsden, and thus failing to

establish the Court’s equitable jurisdiction, the Court was unable to decide the merits of the

petition for return of property filed by Plaintiff. Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 324. On February 29,

2008, in response to the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.2

Standard of Review

Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order; however,

the rule is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” 12 James Wm. Moore et al., supra § 59.30[4]. It is well

established in the Ninth Circuit that, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted,

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d at 665. See also School Dist. No. 1J

v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Moreover, a Rule 59(e) motion may not

Case 2:07-cv-01200-SMM Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

be used to raise new arguments or present evidence for the first time when such arguments

and or evidence could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. See id.

Discussion

In contemplation of Rule 59(e), Plaintiff contends that the Court “clearly erred when

it denied him the right to present evidence and testimony on contested issues of material fact

by ruling on the pleadings, in lieu of conducting an evidentiary hearing on this matter.”

Plaintiff then proceeds to set forth, like a roadmap, his arguments which he previously set

forth in his original petition. Plaintiff is essentially rearguing that he is able to establish, with

evidence and testimony, that the Court has equitable jurisdiction. In particular, Cox

steadfastly maintains that agents of the government exhibited a callous disregard for his

constitutional rights during the execution of the warrants resulting in prejudice to Plaintiff.

This Court disagrees, just as it did in its previous Order. See Doc. 21. Furthermore, the Court

notes that Plaintiff briefly addressed the remaining factors necessary to establish equitable

jurisdiction; however, again, the arguments simply reiterate arguments previously considered

by this Court. According to Rule 59(e), it is manifestly clear that this Court is strictly

prohibited from reconsidering arguments previously made by a party, absent clear error.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish that the Court clearly

erred in its previous findings. 

The power to assert equitable jurisdiction is not meant to be applied liberally, rather,

it “should be exercised sparingly,” Guerra v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 775, 778 (C.D.

1986), and only with “caution and restraint.” Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 324; Meier, 531 F.2d at

554. This is precisely how the Court exercised its power, and Plaintiff has offered no

evidence to suggest otherwise.

Conclusion

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter

Judgment (Doc. 23).

Case 2:07-cv-01200-SMM Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is to remain closed.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01200-SMM Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 4