Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03813/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Garcia
Defendant
Stephen L. Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER J.

GARCIA, 

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-3813 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

REARGUMENT AND

AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 66)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court granted defendant’s motion

for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s motion to delay judgment pursuant to Rule

56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion

for Reargument and Amendment of Judgment” pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, by which plaintiff seeks, in essence, reconsideration of the judgment entered

in favor of defendant. 

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are

not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See

Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). In

particular, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) "'should not be granted, absent

Case 3:02-cv-03813-MMC Document 67 Filed 01/27/06 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

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). In the instant

motion, plaintiff has presented no newly discovered evidence or any intervening change in

the law, nor does plaintiff show the Court has committed “clear error.” 

First, plaintiff reiterates the arguments he raised in connection with his Rule 56(f)

motion for delay of judgment. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order denying that

motion, the arguments are without merit. 

Next, plaintiff asserts that the Court failed to consider certain reports, which, plaintiff

contends, demonstrate summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of

defendant. Plaintiff initially submitted the reports to the Court, along with other documents,

on June 6, 2003, prior to the filing of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In an order

filed June 13, 2003, the Court stated it would consider those documents in conjunction with

its determination of any dispositive motion. Thereafter, the reports, including an incident

report prepared by defendant, became part of the papers the Court considered prior to

granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In the instant motion, plaintiff fails to

specify, and the Court cannot discern upon reviewing the reports again, how anything

contained therein would create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether

defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument and Amendment of Judgment is

hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 66. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2006

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03813-MMC Document 67 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2