Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00705-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRID ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN C. MILAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00705-MCE-SAB

ORDER

Plaintiff Jerrid Allen (“Plaintiff”) requests reconsideration of this Court’s Order 

dismissing his Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 43. A motion 

for reconsideration is properly brought pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e) or Rule 60(b).1 Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989). A motion for 

reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if filed within twenty-eight days of entry 

of judgment, but as a Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than twenty-eight days after 

judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion may be construed as a Rule 59 motion even though it 

is not labeled as such, or not labeled at all. Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805. Since this motion 

seeks reconsideration of a final judgment and was timely filed, the Court will treat it as a 

 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise indicated. 

Case 1:15-cv-00705-MCE-SAB Document 44 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 59(e) motion.

A court should be loath to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary 

circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a 

manifest injustice. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 

(1988). Nonetheless, in certain limited circumstances, a court has discretion to 

reconsider its prior decisions. 

While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous 

order, “the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s 

Federal Practice § 59.30(4) (3d ed. 2000)). Indeed, a district court should not grant a 

motion for reconsideration “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 St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order, or belief that the court is 

wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Twentieth Century-Fox 

Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration 

to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist 

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

Rule 59(e) and motions for reconsideration are therefore not intended to “give an 

unhappy litigant one additional change to sway the judge.” Frito-Lay of P.R., Inc. v. 

Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.P.R. 1981) (quoting Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 226, 

233 (N.D. Ohio 1967)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is deficient in at least two ways. First, 

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any newly discovered evidence, shown that the 

Court committed clear error, or demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law 

Case 1:15-cv-00705-MCE-SAB Document 44 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 3
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

since the Court dismissed the action on February 23, 2016. Second, Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with Local Rule 230(j) dooms the instant Motion. Although Plaintiff clearly 

believes that the Court was wrong in dismissing his case, that mere belief is not grounds 

for relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is 

accordingly DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 29, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-00705-MCE-SAB Document 44 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3