Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01387/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01387-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 - 06CV1387 BEN (AJB)

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALTON B. HORNBACK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV1387 BEN (AJB)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[D.E. # 13]

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Alton B. Hornback (“Petitioner”) petitioned this Court pro se to issue a Writ of

Mandamus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1361, ordering Respondent United States of America

(“Respondent”) via the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to

correct his patent. On May 15, 2007, this Court granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

Petitioner now seeks a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 15, 2007, Order. For the

reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.

Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its previous order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 

(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v.

Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 855

Case 3:06-cv-01387-BEN-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/15/07 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 - 06CV1387 BEN (AJB)

F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1988)). None of these circumstances apply here, Petitioner merely seeks for this

Court to change its mind in Petitioner’s favor. The Petitioner presents no newly discovered

evidence to justify reconsideration. Similarly, the Court finds that Rule 60(b) has no application

here either. Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from final judgment on the basis of 

“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; ....(6) or any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This has not been shown and

does not apply. 

Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 7.1.i requires a party seeking reconsideration to show “what

new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not

shown, upon such prior application.” Petitioner has failed to fulfill this procedural requirement. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 13) is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01387-BEN-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 2