Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658-23/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SNOWDEN, et al.,, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-1658 JAM DAD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to alter or amend the 

judgment entered in this case. Defendants have opposed the motion. 

BACKGROUND 

 On June 8, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the 

assigned magistrate judge granted plaintiff three extensions of time to file an opposition to 

defendants’ motion. On October 30, 2012, having not received an opposition to the pending 

motion for summary judgment from plaintiff, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations and 

represented to the court that he in fact submitted his opposition to defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on October 11, 2012, to the appropriate prison official for delivery but that it 

never left the prison’s outgoing mail. 

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 125 Filed 12/10/13 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 

 On January 23, 2013, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff had made a 

credible showing that he attempted to file a timely opposition to the defendants’ pending motion 

for summary judgment and vacated the findings and recommendations in which it had been 

recommended that this action be dismissed. At that time plaintiff was granted a final fourteenday extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and was 

warned that no further extensions of time would be granted for that purpose. However, on 

February 21, 2013, having still not received any opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment from plaintiff, the assigned magistrate judge again issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action and comply with the court’s orders. As noted in the latter findings and 

recommendations, rather than file an opposition setting forth his arguments against summary 

judgment as ordered by the court, plaintiff on February 15, 2013, had filed an untimely three-anda-half page explanation of why he needed yet more time to oppose defendants’ summary 

judgment motion. On April 25, 2013, the undersigned adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s 

February 21, 2013, findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the action without 

prejudice. The court entered judgment on the same day. 

DISCUSSION 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to 

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his motion, plaintiff contends that he has 

completed his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and will submit it if the 

court allows him to do so. Plaintiff contends that he did not have a copy of his previouslyundelivered October 11, 2012, opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

because the copier at the prison where he was incarcerated was out of order at that time and 

therefore, he was required to re-create his opposition. 

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration pursuant to a motion to alter or amend a judgment is 

appropriate if the 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. [citation omitted.] 

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 125 Filed 12/10/13 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 

There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 

reconsideration. 

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 

1993). See also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

As defense counsel observes in opposing plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the 

judgment, in this case plaintiff has failed to present any newly discovered evidence, demonstrate 

that the court committed clear error, or cited to any intervening change in the controlling law such 

that reconsideration is warranted. Nor has plaintiff informed the court of any highly unusual 

circumstances that warrant reconsideration. The court provided plaintiff with repeated 

opportunities to file an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. (See Doc. Nos. 88, 

90, 93, 96 and 103.) Although plaintiff clearly disagrees with the court’s order dismissing this 

action, he has not set forth any grounds whatsoever for the court to grant him relief under Rule 

59.1

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion to alter or amend the 

judgment (Doc. No. 114) is denied as unnecessary; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 115) is denied. 

DATED: December 9, 2013 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________ _____ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

1

 Even if the court were to construe plaintiff’s motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court would still not grant him relief. Under Rule 60(b), 

the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, 

or other misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied . . .; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The court finds 

that none of these potential grounds applies in this case. 

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 125 Filed 12/10/13 Page 3 of 3