(PS) Alston v. City of Sacramento
This text of (PS) Alston v. City of Sacramento ((PS) Alston v. City of Sacramento) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR., No. 2:21-cv-02049 DAD AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting 19 summary judgment in defendants’ favor. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and 20 accordingly this motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The 21 court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 22 of Civil Procedure 60. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request should be DENIED. 23 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 Plaintiff filed his civil rights complaint on November 5, 2021, presenting eight claims 25 arising from the police response to a home in the Meadowview area of Sacramento on October 6, 26 2021. ECF No. 1. The case was litigated through defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 27 ECF No, 32, which the undersigned recommended be granted. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff filed 28 objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 40. On February 22, 2024, the district 1 judge adopted the findings and recommendations, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. 2 ECF Nos. 41, 42. 3 II. THE MOTION 4 On February 27, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Reconsideration FRCP 5 59(e) or Rule 60(b).” ECF No. 43. Plaintiff summarizes his argument in support of 6 reconsideration as follows: 7 The main argument of the Plaintiff was how can the plaintiff be considered a witness to this crime, when defendant Hamm stated 8 under oath that the plaintiff was not a witness ECF 22, the crime was solved, also the defendants have their witness log supplied to the 9 District Attorney and City Attorney stating they only had 4 witnesses during their investigation. 10 11 ECF No. 43 at 2. 12 III. STANDARDS 13 The law of the case doctrine provides that “a court is generally precluded from 14 reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the 15 identical case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). A motion for 16 reconsideration generally should not be granted unless the district court is presented with newly 17 discovered evidence, has committed clear error, or there has been an intervening change in the 18 controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 19 (9th Cir. 2009). A party seeking reconsideration must do more than disagree with the court’s 20 decision or recapitulate that which the court has previously considered. United States v. 21 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Nor can a reconsideration 22 motion “be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 23 reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. 24 “To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 25 court to reverse its prior decision.” Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131 (internal 26 citations omitted). 27 Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for alteration or amendment 28 of a final judgment. Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy which should be used 1 sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). In general, there are 2 four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to 3 correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is 4 necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is 5 necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening 6 change in controlling law. Id. (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 7 1999) (en banc) (per curiam)). 8 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of a final 9 judgment or any order where one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 10 surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, 11 could not have been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, 12 misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) 13 satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A 14 motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time, and 15 no later than one year, of the entry of the judgment or the order being challenged. Id. “Motions 16 for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are 17 addressed to the sound discretion of the district court...” Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and 18 Annunity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997). 19 IV. ANALYSIS 20 Plaintiff has not argued any of the Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) grounds for relief, referenced 21 any circumstances that could be construed as implicating any of the Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) 22 criteria, or presented any cognizable ground for reconsideration. Plaintiff focuses on his 23 contention that he was neither a suspect nor a witness to any criminal activity when he was 24 detained, which goes to the merits of the court’s previous rulings on the legality of the detention. 25 However, plaintiff does not point to any new evidence or information that was not available when 26 the motion for summary judgment was decided. All exhibits to the declaration in support of 27 reconsideration, ECF No. 43-1, were available when the summary judgment motion was briefed. 28 Petitioner’s attempt to relitigate the merits of the summary judgment motion is therefore 1 || msufficient as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 2 at 1131. 3 Plaintiffs disagreement with the court’s decision does not warrant reconsideration. The 4 | motion should be denied. 5 Vv. CONCLUSION 6 It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7 || 43) be DENIED. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PS) Alston v. City of Sacramento, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-alston-v-city-of-sacramento-caed-2024.