Opinion
Case No. CV04-251-S-BLW.
November 18, 2004
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's post-judgment motion entitled "Plaintiff's Action for Temporary or Preliminary Injunctive Relief" (Docket No. 10). Plaintiff's Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Complaint) was dismissed on August 16, 2004, and a Judgment was entered on the same date. Plaintiff's Complaint was subject to dismissal because he failed to challenge his parole revocation through a state court habeas proceeding prior to filing a civil rights claim. Therefore, he was informed that his claims were premature and the case was dismissed without prejudice to re-filing it.
Plaintiff's pending motion presents the same set of facts set forth in the dismissed Complaint, and he requests that the Court reverse its Order of dismissal. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief will be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 16, 2004 Order. The motion for reconsideration was filed on August 23, 2004. Accordingly, it will be construed as a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
In Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the limited use of a Rule 59(e) motion:
Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000). Indeed, "a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation, See id.
Plaintiff's request for reconsideration contains no new facts, nor does it argue that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. The Court did not commit clear error in its decision to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, and, therefore, the request for reconsideration is without merit.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Action for Temporary or Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 10, and all parts therein) is DENIED.