(PS) Hedrington v. David Grant Medical Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 2:22-cv-00074-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 David Grant Medical Center, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Orolonzo Hedrington moves to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule 18 | of Civil Procedure 59(e). See generally Mot., ECF No. 78. “[A] Rule 59(e) motion is an 19 | extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 20 | resources.” Kaufmann vy. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Wood v. Ryan, 21 | 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) 22 | motion if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 23 | intervening change in the controlling law.” /d. (quoting Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121). 24 Hedrington contends the court clearly erred in applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 | 4(m), which sets a deadline for service of process. The complaint was not dismissed for failure to 26 | complete service, but rather because the complaint was filed after the statute of limitations had 27 | expired and did not state a claim on which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). See F&Rs 28 | at 4-7, adopted in full, ECF No. 74. Hedrington also argues new evidence and a fraud has come

1 | to light, but he does not explain why the evidence or the fraud shows the complaint should not 2 | have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Nor does he show this evidence was previously 3 | unavailable. 4 Finally, Hedrington requests relief under Rule 59(e) to prevent manifest injustice, in effect 5 | asking the court to reconsider its decision not to recuse. See Order (July 5, 2023), ECF No. 71 6 | (denying motion to recuse). The court perceives no error in its previous order and no manifest 7 | injustice has resulted from that order. 8 The motion to alter or amend the judgment (ECF No. 78) is denied. Similar motions filed 9 | in the future will be disregarded. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] DATED: October 17, 2023. 12 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE