Opinion
Case No. 1:14-cv-01154-RRB
01-25-2016
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, Plaintiff, v. DR. KIM NGUYEN, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
At Docket 22 Gregory Ell Shehee has moved the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing the First Amended Complaint.
Docket 21.
Under the law of the case doctrine a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same or a higher court in the same case. However, the law of the case doctrine is not a shackle without a key.
Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993).
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59 governs post-judgment motions to amend judgment or for new trial, not interlocutory orders. If the court enters an interlocutory order without entering a final judgment, e.g., an order granting summary judgment but no final judgment is entered under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54, Rule 59 does not apply. Likewise, Rule 60(b) by its very terms applies solely to final judgments. However, as long as a district court retains jurisdiction over a case, it has inherent power to reconsider and modify an interlocutory order for sufficient cause.
United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000).
See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2013); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001).
That inherent power is not unfettered: a court may depart from the law of the case doctrine where: "(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial."
Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (footnote and internal quotes omitted); see Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
In this case, only the first ground, clearly erroneous applies. Nothing in the pending motion indicates that the Court clearly erred in dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.
The Court notes that subsequently Shehee filed his Second Amended Complaint. Docket 23. This effectively renders the motion moot in any event. --------
Accordingly, the Motion Requesting Reconsideration for Corrections of the First Amended Complaint at Docket 22 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE