IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRlCT OF OREGON 

WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, D.B.A. 

HOLDNER FARMS 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

KATY COBA, DIRECTOR OF OREGON 

DEPT. OF AGRlCULTURE, IN HER 

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; 

DICK PEDERSON, DIRECTOR OF THE 

OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND 

OFFICIAL CAP A CITY, 

Defendants. 

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge: 

Civ. No. 3:15-cv-2039-AC 

AMENDED OPINION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 29, 2015, alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 and requesting a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs complaint disputed the state's authority 

to regulate livestock operations on his land, and appeared to allege: (1) a § 1983 claim for 

deprivation of constitutional due process rights; (2) a claim that the Department of 

Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and ODA acted outside their enforcement authority; and (3) a 

Page 1 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 45 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5
claim that plaintiffs land patent bars the state from regulating water quality on plaintiffs land. 

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

("Rule") 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiff lacked standing, that claim preclusion and 

issue preclusion barred his lawsuit, that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred his § 1983 claim, 

that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, that plaintiff may not bring a private action 

under the Clean Water Act ("CW A"), and that he failed to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted. On June 1, 2016, the court issued an Opinion and Order ("Order") granting defendants' 

motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On June 17, 2016, plaintiff filed this 

motion for reconsideration of the court's Order, filed as an "Objection to Opinion and Order to 

Dismiss." (ECF No. 36.) For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is denied. 1 

Legal Standards 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly discuss motions for 

reconsideration. Allen v. Nw. Permanente, P.C., No. 3:12-cv-0402-ST, 2012 WL 5996935, at *1 

(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2012). However, two rules contemplate a situation where the court may revisit 

prior decisions and order them amended, rescinded, or reversed. Rule 59(e), 60(b) (2016). After 

the court has entered a final judgment in a matter, a party may seek relief from that judgment 

"under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59( e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 

Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment)." Allen, 2012 WL 5996935, at *1 (quoting Sch. Dist. No. JJ, 

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Rule 60(b) provides that a court may "relieve a party or its legal representative from a 

final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

1 Plaintiff requested oral argument on his motion. The court finds this motion appropriate 

for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-l(d)(l). 

Page 2 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 45 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 5
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b ); 

(3) fraud ... , misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party; 

( 4) the judgment is void; 

( 5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier 

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer 

equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief." 

Rule 60(b ). Rule 59( e) does not articulate a test to determine when a comi should reconsider a 

prior decision, but comis have determined that reconsideration under Rule 59( e) is "appropriate 

if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed a clear error 

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) ifthere is an intervening change in controlling 

law." Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2006); Kana Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Under either rule, "a motion for reconsideration 

should accomplish two goals: (1) it should demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider 

its prior decision and (2) set forth law or facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the comi 

to reverse its prior decision." Romtec, et al. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., 08-06297-HO, 2011 WL 

690633, at *8 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2011) (citing Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp. 

429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996)). 

When a paiiy moves for reconsideration based on new evidence, the comi applies the 

saine test regardless of whether the motion is brought under Rule 59 or Rule 60. Jones v. 

Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990). "Under this test the movant must show the 

evidence (1) existed at the time of the [original decision], (2) could not have been discovered 

through due diligence, and (3) was of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have 

been likely to change the disposition of the case." Jones, 921 F.2d at 878 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Page 3 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 45 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 5
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kana Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. 

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted. Twentieth 

Century-Fox Film Corp.v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Discussion 

The court has carefully reviewed the entire record and the briefs in this matter, and finds 

that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does not provide reason under Rule 59(e) or Rule 

60(b) to reconsider the court's Order. Specifically, plaintiffs brief does not allege mistake, 

inadvertence, surpnse, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, 

misrepresentation or misconduct by defendants; that the judgment is void; or any other reason 

that justifies relief. See Rule 60(b). Nor has plaintiff shown that the court committed a clear 

error, an intervening change in controlling law, or that error, or that the initial decision was 

manifestly unjust. See Sissoko, 440 F.3d at 1153-54; Kana Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. 

Rather, plaintiffs motion reiterates points raised in his response to defendants' motion to 

dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 20, 36, 41.) Plaintiff also raises arguments regarding Eleventh 

Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. The court considered these issues and arguments 

in its June 1, 2016 Order. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on 

these issues during motion practice, and the court will not reconsider them now. In sum, because 

plaintiff has failed to provide adequate grounds for reconsideration of the court's Order, his 

motion is denied. 

!!Ill 

//Ill 

!!Ill 

Page 4 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 45 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion 

After careful consideration ofrecord and briefs, plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 36) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 8th day of August, 2016. 

1 JQHN V.ACOSTA 1 1 

United SJates Magistrate Judge "-' 

Page 5 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 45 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 5