Grayton v. Carroll
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the complaint as frivolous. The court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to present new verifiable factual or evidentiary support to justify vacating the previous order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.” | agree with court The order recites that the previous dismissal was based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim and the denial of IFP status due to income. The court states it does not find 'verifiable factual or evidentiary support' to vacate the order. While the order does not explicitly state that the plaintiff failed to meet the specific Rule 59(e) standards (clear error or manifest injustice), the conclusion that no new evidence was presented is consistent with the cited authorities regarding the 'extraordinary remedy' nature of reconsideration. The decision follows from the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the high standard for Rule 59(e) motions and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit and district court authority. It applies this standard to the specific facts recited (lack of new verifiable evidence) to reach the conclusion that the motion must be denied. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order denying reconsideration based on the lack of new evidence.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MAURICE GRAYTON, Case No.: 20-cv-1584-CAB-WVG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 14 v. RECONSIDERATION 15 TIFFANY L. CARROLL et al., [Doc. No. 5] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On August 19, 2020 this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s application for 21 leave to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). [Doc. No. 3.] On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion 23 for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 5.] 24 “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous 25 order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 26 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 27 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A Rule 59(e) 28 motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the 1 || first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Id. “[A]fter 2 || thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration. 3 ||Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-—CV—2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 4 ||July 15, 2009). In other words, a Rule 59(e) motion does not give parties a “second bite at 5 ||the apple.” See Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236-37 (th Cir. 2001); see also 6 || Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. State of Mich., 152 F.R.D. 562, 563 (W.D. Mich. 1992) 7 || C‘.W]here the movant is attempting to obtain a complete reversal of the court’s judgment 8 || by offering essentially the same arguments presented on the original motion, the proper 9 || vehicle for relief is an appeal.”). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied because 11 || Plaintiff indicated he receives $4,400 in monthly disability payments. Plaintiff’s complaint 12 || was dismissed sua sponte because Plaintiff failed to state a claim and without leave to 13 |}amend as frivolous. Upon additional review, the Court does not find that Plaintiff 14 || presented any verifiable factual or evidentiary support to justify vacating its previous order. 15 || Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 16 It is SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: September 9, 2020 € 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28