Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03366/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03366-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUGETT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03366-JD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND THE 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 80

This civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner was dismissed and closed when 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiff has filed a motion for 

reconsideration that the Court will construe as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59 must be made no later than twentyeight days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under 

Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court 

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 

change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation 

omitted) (en banc). 

Evidence is not newly discovered for purposes of a Rule 59(e) motion if it was available 

prior to the district court’s ruling. See Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(affirming district court’s denial of habeas petitioner's motion for reconsideration where 

petitioner’s evidence of exhaustion was not “newly discovered” because petitioner was aware of 

such evidence almost one year prior to the district court’s denial of the petition). 

The day before defendants’ filed the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed a 

proposed third amended complaint and a motion to amend. In the third amended complaint, 

plaintiff noted that a key date in the prior complaint was incorrect and he sought to correct the 

Case 3:13-cv-03366-JD Document 85 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

record. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to 

amend. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for the Court to reconsider the motion for summary 

judgment in light of the third amended complaint. While the Court denied the motion to amend, 

the Court also considered the merits of the summary judgment motion in light of the third 

amended complaint and found that summary judgment would still be granted despite the corrected 

factual assertions. Because the Court has already considered the third amended complaint and has 

already addressed the other arguments plaintiff presents in this motion, the motion to alter or 

amend the judgment (Docket No. 80) is DENIED.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court also declines to alter the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

state law claims that were dismissed without prejudice to be filed in state court.

Case 3:13-cv-03366-JD Document 85 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUGETT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03366-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 17, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Thomas Goolsby

PBSP D-8-224

F-19778

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532 

Dated: March 17, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:13-cv-03366-JD Document 85 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 3