Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06671/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06671-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RONALD CRAIG FISH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-06671-VKD 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S JULY 1, 2019 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 48

On July 1, 2019, the Court received a letter from plaintiff Ronald Fish (Dkt. No. 48), 

which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds Mr. Fish’s motion suitable 

for decision without oral argument.

The Court may alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) upon a showing of one of four 

grounds: “(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) the moving 

party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to 

prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. 

Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citation 

omitted). A motion brought under Rule 59 is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate the 

claims that were before the Court prior to judgment, but is instead an “extraordinary remedy, to be 

used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterps., 

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted) 

(“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time 

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation,” and should not be granted 

“absent highly unusual circumstances.”).

Case 5:18-cv-06671-VKD Document 49 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Fish has identified no “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence” or 

“intervening change in controlling law” that would provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its 

order dismissing his complaint without leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6). Turner, 338 F.3d at 

1063. Nor has Mr. Fish demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary “to correct manifest errors 

of law or fact” or “to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. Instead, Mr. Fish’s motion essentially seeks 

to re-litigate the claims before the Court prior to judgment. Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. Furthermore, 

the Court finds that the authority upon which Mr. Fish now seeks to rely could have been raised 

earlier in the litigation, and in any event, no “highly unusual circumstances” exist that would 

warrant reconsideration. Id. The Court finds that Mr. Fish fails to satisfy any of the four factors 

in Turner or the “highly unusual circumstances” standard in Kona. Accordingly, his motion for 

reconsideration is denied.

Mr. Fish is admonished that it is not appropriate to communicate with the Court by letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06671-VKD Document 49 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 2