Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03295/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03295-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICHARD C. BLUM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-03295-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

On December 8, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff Howard Zochlinski objected. ECF No. 79. The 

court adopted the recommendation of dismissal in an order filed June 10, 2016. ECF No. 86. 

The action was dismissed, and judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 87. 

On July 8, 2016, Zochlinski asked the court to reconsider, to vacate its order 

dismissing the action, and to relieve him of the judgment, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

59(a) and 60(b). ECF No. 88. He reemphasizes several points raised in his objections to the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See generally id. at 3 (“[This court] 

apparently disregarded Zochlinksi’s objections . . . .”); id. at 7 (“[Zochlinski] does believe that, in 

reaching its decision, the Court did not give sufficient weight in its considerations to Plaintiff’s 

medical issues . . . [and] demonstrated a bias toward the defendant’s position.”). 

Case 2:11-cv-03295-KJM-KJN Document 89 Filed 07/19/16 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

The court construes Mr. Zochlinski’s motion as one brought under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must 

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”); Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. 

N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (requests for reconsideration filed within 

the time period identified in Rule 59(e) are construed as motions under that section). “Under 

Rule 59(e), 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 v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Mr. Zochlinski’s motion does not identify newly discovered evidence, an 

intervening change in the law, or a manifest injustice. The court clarifies, to the extent not 

previously made clear, that it considered each of his filings, including those at ECF Nos. 76, 79, 

81, 82, and 84, before it issued its order adopting the recommendation of dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 19, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-03295-KJM-KJN Document 89 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2