Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03083/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03083-9/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 

JOHNNEY RAMEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. REYERSBACH, et. al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, moves to reopen this case. ECF No. 53. 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 9, 2013 against five defendants, Ryersbach, 

Granillo, Smith, Vasquez, and Fransham, alleging First Amendment retaliation related to 

defendants’ confiscation of his property on September 23, 2008. ECF No. 20. Defendants moved 

to dismiss the complaint, contending plaintiff’s action was barred by res judicata because of a 

state court’s judgment on the “same nucleus of facts.” ECF No. 31-1. While the magistrate judge 

found defendants’ claims were not barred by res judicata, ECF No. 48, this court held otherwise, 

concluding plaintiff’s claims were barred by California’s rules governing claim preclusion, ECF 

No. 51. This court dismissed and closed the case on March 25, 2016. ECF Nos. 51, 52. 

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 54 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

The court construes plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case as a motion to amend the 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 59(e), which provides that a party may file a 

“motion to alter or amend a judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has explained 

the standard for a motion under Rule 59(e) as follows: 

“Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed 

in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in 

granting or denying the motion.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 

1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

But amending a judgment after its entry remains “an extraordinary 

remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks 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. Id.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). This Rule “may not be used to 

relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been made prior 

to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (citation 

omitted). 

Here, plaintiff argues the court should consider his Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendants for the destruction of a legal document as an act of punishment and deterrence. 

ECF No. 53. But plaintiff does not set forth any new facts or evidence satisfying any of the four 

Herron factors. Without any basis for reconsidering its prior order, the court DENIES plaintiff’s 

motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 18, 2016. 

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 54 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2