Arellano v. Ojeda
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Raul Arellano v. L. Helmick (2021-02-23) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's second motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment granting qualified immunity to defendants in an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement case. The court denied the motion, finding it merely relitigated old arguments and that the court had not committed clear error.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 59(E)“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, which requires a showing of clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law. The court notes that the plaintiff's motion is a 'recapitulation of the cases and arguments previously considered' and cites authority (Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker; Taylor v. Knapp) establishing that Rule 59(e) cannot be used to relitigate old matters. The court also states it has reviewed the record and is satisfied it did not commit error. This is a standard procedural denial consistent with federal rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for Rule 59(e) motions and applies it to the facts that the plaintiff is re-arguing previously rejected points. The court cites appropriate binding authority from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court to support the proposition that reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating old arguments. The conclusion that the motion is denied follows logically from the stated grounds.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARELLANO, JR., Case No. 3:14-cv-02401-MMA-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59(E) 14 15 E. OJEDA, et al., [Doc. No. 123] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings an Eighth 21 Amendment conditions of confinement claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of 22 allegations that prison officials failed to adequately respond when his cell toilet clogged 23 and overflowed over the course of a long weekend in April 2014. As relevant here, 24 Defendants O. Mack and L. Helmick previously moved for summary judgment on the 25 ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Doc. No. 101. The 26 Court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. See Doc. Nos. 27 105, 106. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling and judgment 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Doc. No. 114. The Court denied 1 || Plaintiff's motion. See Doc. No. 121. Plaintiff once against moves for reconsideration, 2 || arguing that the Court committed clear error. See Doc. No. 123. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes courts to provide relief from 4 ||judgment by motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). It is appropriate to alter or amend a 5 ||judgment pursuant to this rule if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered 6 || evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 7 manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. 8 || Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). To carry the 9 || burden of proof, a moving party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 10 || disagreement with the Court’s decision or a recapitulation of the cases and arguments 11 || previously considered by the court. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. 12 || Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). This is because Rule 59(e) may not be used to 13 || relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been 14 raised prior to entry of the judgment. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486-87 15 || (2008); see also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding denial of a 16 || Rule 59(e) motion proper where the motion “presented no arguments that had not already 17 || been raised in opposition to summary judgment”). Yet that is precisely Plaintiff’ s 18 intention in bringing the instant motion. 19 In any event, the Court has carefully reviewed the entire record of this case and 20 || exhaustively reconsidered its previous rulings. The Court is satisfied that it did not 21 |}commit any error. Defendants Mack and Helmick are entitled to qualified immunity 22 ||from suit and judgment in their favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs 23 ||motion. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank Notice 24 ||of Appeal (Civil) form. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: April 23, 2020 J, UTu - (2 Lox 27 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 39 United States District Judge