Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02492/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02492-2/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

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNIFER P. SHAFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2492-MCE-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2015, the Court dismissed this action. ECF No. 17. 

Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff now moves to “alter or amend 

judgment” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which the Court construes 

as a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 21. 

Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct 

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange 

Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord School Dist. No. 1J 

v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts construing Rule 59(e) have 

Case 2:14-cv-02492-MCE-EFB Document 27 Filed 09/01/15 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

noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to 

“rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which might have 

been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 

1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and 

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.

In addition, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative 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 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an 

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what 

new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., 

Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to relief due his inability to obtain

writing supplies from the legal library. Plaintiff brought this situation to the Court’s 

attention in his first Motion for Extension for Time (ECF No. 13), which requested

Case 2:14-cv-02492-MCE-EFB Document 27 Filed 09/01/15 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

additional time in which to file his objections to the findings and recommendations issued 

by the assigned magistrate judge. That request was granted, as was a subsequent 

request (ECF No. 15). In total, Plaintiff had from April 29, 2015 to July 22, 2015 to object 

to the findings and recommendations. No objection was received. On August 12, 2015, 

the Court issued its Order adopting the findings and recommendations in full. ECF No. 

17. A day after judgment was entered, Plaintiff’s third request for an extension was 

received. See ECF No. 19. The fact that Plaintiff was unable to file an objection (or an 

additional request for an extension) in the long window of time provided by the Court

does not entitle Plaintiff to relief from judgment. 

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from judgment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02492-MCE-EFB Document 27 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3