Opinion ID: 618654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The denial of plaintiff's motion to reconsider

Text: We review the district court's denial of Feliciano-Hernández's motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Meléndez-García v. Sánchez, 629 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir.2010); see also ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (2008) (District courts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding Rule 59(e) motions, subject to circumstances developed in the case law.). Feliciano-Hernández's motion states it is pursuant to Rules 52(b) and 59(a). Rule 52(b) provides for a motion to amend or make additional findings; Rule 59(a) provides for a motion for a new trial or further action after a non-jury trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b), 59(a). On appeal, Feliciano-Hernández states that his motion was actually under Rule 59(e), and that Rule 59(a) in his papers is a typographical error. Regardless of which Rule of Civil Procedure plaintiff intended to move under, it is clear from the district court's December 8, 2010 opinion and order denying the motion that the court considered Feliciano-Hernández's arguments both for amending the August 24, 2010 opinion's findings and for reconsidering the conclusion of that opinion. Because of the close relationship between Rule 59(e) and Rule 52(b), we do not think that it is of dispositive significance that the district court relied on 52(b) rather than 59(e). Nat'l Metal Finishing Co. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 122 (1st Cir.1990). The motion for reconsideration argued that the dismissal order was based on inaccurate facts and was erroneous as to Laboy-Alvarado and improperly sua sponte as to the other defendants. [5] The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. The factual allegations that Feliciano-Hernández argues were not considered by the district court are either legal conclusions couched as facts or are facts that the court did indeed include in its opinion. The court was also acting within its discretion in refusing to reconsider arguments that the plaintiff had already made or to consider new arguments that he could have made earlier. A motion to reconsider should not raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued. ACA, 512 F.3d at 55 (quoting FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 2011) (The Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. (footnotes omitted)). The motion also requested that the court allow Feliciano-Hernández to file an amended complaint, to which we now turn.