Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01774/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01774-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

RYAN J. DUERST,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLACER COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01774-GEB-AC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR 

AMEND JUDGMENT AND STRIKING 

REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF*

On December 4, 2014, an Order was filed which adopted 

the Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 2014 Findings and 

Recommendations in full and dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint with prejudice. (Order, ECF No. 9.) Judgment was 

entered accordingly on the same day. (Judgment, ECF No. 10.)

On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff moved under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) to alter or amend the 

judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. to Alter or Amend J. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 12.) 

Plaintiff also requested on the same date “a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

on all laws stated and cited in the [First Amended Complaint] and 

in the Objections to Magistrates Findings and Recommendations in 

this case and the remedies sought.” (Pl.’s Req. for Declaratory 

J., ECF No. 12.)

 

* These matters are suitable for decision without oral argument. See E.D. 

Cal. R. 230(g).

Case 2:14-cv-01774-GEB-AC Document 13 Filed 12/22/14 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

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.

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). 

Plaintiff has not made an adequate showing under any of 

the referenced grounds for amendment of judgment. Rather, he 

reiterates many of the contentions made in his Objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, which the Court

considered in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is 

DENIED. 

Further, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is 

stricken since it was improperly filed after judgment was 

entered.

Dated: December 19, 2014

 

Case 2:14-cv-01774-GEB-AC Document 13 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 2