Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-55/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L.

BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R

YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS,

A GOLD, and S. SCARSELLA,

Defendants.

No. 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO VACATE JUDGMENT 

Trial commenced in this action on July 28, 2015. On 

July 30, 2015, the Court granted each Defendant’s motion for 

judgment as a matter of law, and judgment was entered accordingly 

on August 4, 2015. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 

to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e), arguing the Court violated his due process rights and his 

right to a jury trial. (Pl.’s Mot. Vacate 2, ECF No. 333.)

Specifically, Plaintiff argues the Court incorrectly limited the

claims to be presented at trial in its pretrial orders, 

obstructed Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence at trial, allowed 

the jury to be tarnished by one potential juror’s bias, and 

permitted the jury to see Plaintiff while in wrist restraints. 

(Id.) 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 338 Filed 09/08/15 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

Defendants oppose the motion, rejoining, “Plaintiff’s 

moving papers do not meet his burden of demonstrating cause to 

alter or amend the judgment” under Rule 59(e). (Defs.’ Opp’n to 

Mot. Vacate 2:19-20, ECF No. 336.) Defendants argue: 

Plaintiff’s moving papers do not identify any 

newly discovered evidence, clear error 

committed by the District Judge, or an 

intervening change in the controlling law. 

Rather, Plaintiff submits a vague statement 

that the District Judge violated his due 

process rights and right to a jury trial, and 

he complains about jury selection. Notably, 

since the District Judge granted Defendants’ 

motion for judgment as a matter of law, this 

case was not submitted to the jury for 

determination, and any jury selection issues 

are therefore irrelevant. Moreover, Plaintiff 

has not submitted evidence or otherwise cited 

to the record demonstrating any basis for 

amending the Judgment or granting a new 

trial.

(Id. at 2:12-19.)

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party 

may move to have the court amend its judgment within twenty-eight 

days after entry of the judgment.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 

634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). However, “amending a 

judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which 

should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

In general, there are four basic grounds upon 

which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) 

if such motion is necessary to correct 

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 

judgment rests; (2) if such motion is 

necessary to present newly discovered or 

previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such 

motion is necessary to prevent manifest 

injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 

justified by an intervening change in 

controlling law. 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 338 Filed 09/08/15 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

Id.

Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to amend 

the judgment on any of the referenced grounds. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 333), is DENIED. 

Dated: September 4, 2015

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 338 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3