Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Eckstrom
Plaintiff
Martin Hoshino
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL ECKSTROM

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARTIN HOSHINO,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Carl Eckstrom’s (“Plaintiff”) filings titled 

“Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for New Trial [pursuant to] FRCP 59(a)(1)(B), 

(a)(2)” and Motion for a New Trial under “FRCP 59 . . . or FRCP 60(b).” (ECF Nos. 37, 39.) 

Construing Plaintiff’s request as an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, 

Plaintiff’s request is hereby GRANTED. For the reasons set forth below, and construing 

Plaintiff’s “motion for a new trial” as a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 40 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 4
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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 on March 15, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2017, the magistrate judge screened the 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found it failed to comply with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 11.) Accordingly, 

the Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (Id.) 

On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which was also screened 

and dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF Nos. 17, 20.) The magistrate judge 

further noted Plaintiff’s claim may be barred by the statute of limitations but again granted leave 

to amend. (ECF No. 20 at 2–5.)

On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 

23.) On August 24, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the SAC without leave 

to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations, which were considered. (ECF No. 27; see also ECF Nos. 28, 

35.) 

Before the Court ruled on the pending Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff also filed

a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) and submitted his proposed 

TAC. (ECF Nos. 31–32.) On January 23, 2020, the Court adopted the Findings and

Recommendations, dismissed Plaintiff’s SAC without leave to amend, and denied Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File a TAC. (ECF No. 35.) Judgment was entered on January 23, 2020. 

(ECF No. 36.) 

On February 3, and 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motions for extension of time and 

reconsideration, respectively. (ECF Nos. 37, 39.) 

II. STANDARDS OF LAW

The Court may grant reconsideration under Rules 59(e) or 60. See Schroeder v. 

McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A motion to alter or amend a judgment under 

Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 40 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of entry of judgment; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) 

motion for relief from judgment or order. Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016); 

see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Rule 59(e) does not list specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter, therefore the 

district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 

Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011), citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, 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 controlling 

law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Further, “[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to 

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). 

“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., 634 F.3d at 1111. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Motion for Extension of Time 

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file a Motion for Reconsideration on the basis 

that he is in an “Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) for psychiatric treatment of his mental 

illnesses which includes depression.” (ECF No. 37 at 1–2.) Plaintiff argues that due to his 

depression, he does not believe that he will be able to file his Motion for Reconsideration on time. 

Id. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. 

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Because this case never proceeded to trial, the Court construes Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

New Trial” as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing this action (ECF No. 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 40 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 4
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

35). Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days of entry of judgment and is therefore construed 

as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).1 

Plaintiff fails to advance any argument that establishes he is entitled to relief under Rule 

59(e). Plaintiff argues that his allegations are sufficient to survive screening and that he should be 

allowed to proceed with his lawsuit. (ECF No. 39 at 6–9.) These are the same arguments 

Plaintiff alleged in his SAC, which the Court previously rejected. (See ECF No. 35 at 2 

(explaining why Plaintiff’s proposed TAC did not ameliorate the defects in his prior complaint).) 

Further, despite having multiple opportunities to amend, Plaintiff consistently failed to state a 

cognizable claim. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration indicates any manifest errors 

of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or highly unusual circumstances that would compel a 

different result. In sum, Plaintiff fails to establish he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy 

provided by Rule 59(e). Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 n.1. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. (ECF No. 37.) However, 

Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. (ECF No. 39.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 27, 2020

1 Plaintiff signed his Motion for Reconsideration on February 15, 2020. Accordingly, even 

if the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, his motion would trigger Rule 

59(e) analysis pursuant to the mailbox rule. See Atzet v. Paramo, No. 2:17-cv-01399-MCE-KJN, 

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96265, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2018) (citing Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 

F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Under the mailbox rule, the date the prisoner signed the 

petition is considered the filing date absent evidence to the contrary.”) 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 40 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 4