Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

05cv0513

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, Director CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv0513-L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Arthur Dwayne Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he had been deprived of his First Amendment right

of meaningful access to the courts. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Nita

L. Stormes for a report and recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.3. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff crossmoved for summary judgment and sanctions. He also filed a request for judicial notice. Upon

review of the pleadings, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending to grant Defendants’ summary judgment motion and deny Plaintiff’s motions for

summary judgment and sanctions as well as his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff filed

objections.

Section 636(b)(1) makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v.

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 153 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 5
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states that a motion to alter or amend a

judgment must be filed no later than ten days after the entry of judgment.

2 05cv0513

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original). After

undertaking a de novo review, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, overruled

plaintiff’s objections, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s

motions for summary judgment and for sanctions, and denied plaintiff’s request for judicial

notice. 

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter judgment on April 16, 2008. On April 28, 2008,

he filed a notice of appeal.

Discussion

Plaintiff contends he brings his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). But

Rule 56(e) concerns affidavits in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment

and is therefore not applicable to altering or amending a judgment. Because plaintiff filed his

motion within ten days of the filing of the judgment, the Court will construe his motion as one

brought under Rule 59(e).1

 Because plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court will also consider his

motion as arising under Rule 60(b). See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993)(Where the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment

or order, a motion for relief may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend

judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment)). 

1. Rule 59(e)

Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate "if the district court (1) is presented with

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A Rule 59(e)

motion "should not be granted[] absent highly unusual circumstances." 389 Orange St. Partners

v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion to reconsider is not another opportunity

for the losing party to make its strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp previously

unmeritorious arguments. Reconsideration motions do not give parties a "second bite at the

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 153 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 5
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 05cv0513

apple." Neither are they devices permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments

previously presented. Motion to reconsider are not justified on the basis of new evidence which

could have been discovered prior to the court’s ruling. Finally, “‘after thoughts’ or ‘shifting of

ground’ do not constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration." United States v. Navarro,

972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir.

1998) (internal citations omitted); accord United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp.

2d 1111, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.

1985) (holding that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) was properly denied because

"it presented no arguments that had not already been raised in opposition to summary

judgment"); Costello v. United States Gov’t, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991) ("courts

avoid considering Rule 59(e) motions where the grounds for amendment are restricted to either

repetitive contentions of matters which were before the court on its prior consideration or

contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment"). This rule reflects

the courts’ "concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency." 

Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009. 

Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider and alter its order granting defendant's motion for

summary judgment merely because he disagrees with the ruling. Plaintiff lists six items that he

states concern “injury issues” that the Court did not address. (Motion at 1) The Court reviewed

and discussed the record regarding plaintiff’s alleged injuries and found plaintiff had not raised a

genuine issue of material fact necessary to counter defendants’ summary judgment motion. As

the Court noted, plaintiff’s alleged denial of access to the court caused by insufficient access to

his legal materials occurred when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was considering a certificate

of appealability and not when making a determination of the merits of plaintiff’s habeas petition. 

Further, the record on appeal is forwarded by the district court to the court of appeals and not by

appellant. Thus, plaintiff made no showing of denial of access to the courts.

Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed to show clear error or that

the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed to identify any intervening

changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court's Order. School Dist.

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 153 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4 05cv0513

No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

2. Rule 60(b)

To the extent plaintiff also intends his motion to be brought under Rule 60(b), relief is

granted only upon a showing of "(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or

(6) 'extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief." Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 0p950

F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the

trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt,

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). 

The only portion of Rule 60(b) that could possibly be applicable in the present case is

subsection (6): “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief. Rule 60(b)(6) permits a district

court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” 

See Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 966, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007)

(recognizing courts use this provision sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

injustice where extraordinary circumstances are present). To succeed, a party must set forth

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See,

e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd

in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff has not identified anything extraordinary or provided evidence demonstrating

extraordinary circumstances in his list of six “injuries” he states the Court ignored. Because the

Court considered all arguments raised in the cross motions for summary judgment, plaintiff's

motion under Rule 60(b)(6) is without merit. 

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 153 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5 05cv0513

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 153 Filed 05/19/08 Page 5 of 5