Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE GIBSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE GALAZA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-00-5381 AWI WMW P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO VACATE

JUDGMENT

[Docs. #165]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On July 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion appears to take issue with an order filed by the

Magistrate Judge on July 17, 2006, in which the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions

concerning trial matters because a trial date has not yet been set.

 Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is

presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling

law. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9 Cir. 2001); School Dist. No. 1J th

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 197 Filed 03/20/07 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

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). This showing is a “high th

hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9 Cir. 2001). A judgment is not properly

th

reopened “absent highly unusual circumstances.” Id. Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to 

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

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9 Cir.2000). A district court's denial of th

a motion for a new trial or to amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th

Cir. 2001). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view

of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts. Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, 112 F.3d

1052, 1055 (9 Cir. 1997). Here, the court has not yet entered judgment. Accordingly, no th

motion to vacate judgment is appropriate.

It is possible Plaintiff is attempting to ask the court to reconsider the July 17, 2006 order. 

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185,

1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). “A th th

party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original

decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion

of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v.

Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law th

of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g.,

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in

part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). The court reviews a th

motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). After the time to file

dispositive motions has passed and all dispositive motions have been ruled on, the court will

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 197 Filed 03/20/07 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

issue an order setting a trial date. Until a trial date is set, Plaintiff’s motions concerning trial are

premature.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment (document #165) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 197 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3