Puckett v. Dyer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00750
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JOSEPH PUCKETT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. Doc. 55 14 JERRY DYER, et al.,

15 Defendants.

17 Pending before the Court is plaintiff Joseph Puckett’s pleading titled “Motion for

18 Reconsideration and Defendants Never Ask Plaintiff to Amen[d] Complaint.” Doc. 55. Liberally

19 construed, Puckett seeks reconsideration of the Court’s November 25, 2024, order dismissing his

20 case. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

21 BACKGROUND

22 Plaintiff Joseph Puckett initiated this action on June 21, 2022. Doc. 1. On November 13,

23 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (“F&R”) to dismiss

24 this case for plaintiff’s repeated failure to serve defendants under Rule 4(m). Doc. 26. The F&R

25 advised plaintiff that any objections thereto were to be filed within 14 days of service. Id. at 4–5.

26 Plaintiff did not timely file any objections. See docket.

27 On November 25, 2024, finding that plaintiff failed to timely serve any defendant in this

28 action, the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s F&R and dismissed plaintiff’s case. Doc. 53. 1 On December 5, 2024, plaintiff filed the instant motion objecting to the dismissal of his case. 2 Doc. 55. Because plaintiff filed the motion within 28 days of the final judgment being entered, 3 the Court construes the motion as made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to 4 modify the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 5 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 7 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 8 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 9 law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) 10 (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)) (emphasis in 11 original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 12 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 13 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in 14 the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 15 Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old 16 matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 17 judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (internal quotation marks 18 omitted). 19 Plaintiff does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning his failure to serve 20 that formed the basis of the Court’s November 25, 2024 order. See generally Doc. 55. To the 21 extent discernible, plaintiff contends that he should have been given a further opportunity to 22 amend his complaint and accuses the magistrate judge of prejudice towards him. Id. at 1. 23 However, plaintiff’s vague allegation of bias by the magistrate judge is not sufficient, by 24 itself, to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 25 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered 26 evidence or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and intervening change in 27 controlling law as cognizable grounds for Rule 59(e) reconsideration). Plaintiff fails to 28 demonstrate that anything other than his own failure to timely serve defendants pursuant to Rule 1 4(m) was the basis for the November 25, 2024 dismissal. Plaintiff contends he was entitled to 2 some further opportunity to amend his complaint, however no amendment would have prevented 3 the dismissal in this case, which was based entirely on plaintiff’s failure to comply with service 4 under Rule 4(m). See Doc. 53. 5 Plaintiff also fails to set forth facts showing that manifest injustice would result if the 6 Court denies his motion. “Courts of the Ninth Circuit generally treat ‘manifest injustice’ as very 7 nearly synonymous with ‘clear error,’ defining manifest injustice as any ‘error in the trial court 8 that is direct, obvious and observable, such as a defendant’s guilty plea that is involuntary.’” 9 Greenspan v. Fieldstone Fin. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2018 WL 4945214, at *20 (D. Or. Aug. 22, 10 2018); see also In re Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Ass’n, 302 B.R. 682, 683 (Banks. C.D. 11 Cal. 2003) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)) (defining manifest injustice under 12 Rule 59(e)). “Manifest injustice,” as it pertains to Rule 59(e), is not to be used as a Trojan horse 13 to revisit a court order for a second chance at litigating the same issue. All. for Wild Rockies v. 14 United States Forest Serv., 2020 WL 7082687, at *2 (D. Idaho Dec. 3, 2020). Plaintiff has not set 15 forth any facts to indicate a “direct, obvious and observable” error in the initial order that would 16 constitute manifest injustice. Thus, he fails to meet his burden to justify reconsideration on that 17 basis. 18 Ultimately, plaintiff’s motion asserts vaguely that his case should not have been 19 dismissed. But plaintiff fails to present any newly discovered evidence, show that the Court 20 committed clear error, or argue an intervening change in controlling law that would necessitate 21 alteration or amendment of the judgment. Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Rather, plaintiff merely 22 disputes the findings of the Court and contends vaguely that the prior order was due to bias, 23 which is insufficient to justify reconsideration. See Gates v. Colvin, 2017 WL 8220232, at *1 24 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) (“Mere disagreement with the result does not justify the filing of a Rule 25 59(e) motion.”) (citing U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 26 290 (4th Cir. 2002)); see also Mendoza, 2023 WL 6050581 at *2. 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons explained above: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 55, is DENIED. 4 5 6 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _ 7 Dated: _ January 10, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28