Opinion
22-cv-01788-BLF
01-03-2023
MARTIN MALBERG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT CASHEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT
[RE: ECF NO. 65]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment (ECF No. 65), which “moves the court to alter the initial judgment that may have been based on claims, rights declarations, and evidence of rights and violations in a format not accepted by the court.” The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. See ECF No. 72. The motion was not noticed for hearing, and the Court finds it suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the entry of the judgment. The Ninth Circuit has identified “four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Under unusual circumstances, situations outside those listed above may provide grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). See id. However, “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for this extraordinary remedy in this case. Plaintiff does not attempt to identify any specific basis upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted. He points to no purported errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests (ground 1); newly discovered evidence (ground 2); or change in intervening law (ground 4). Although he posits that “initial judgment that may have been based on claims, rights declarations, and evidence of rights and violations in a format not accepted by the court,” he identifies no material “claims, rights declarations, [or] evidence of rights and violations” that the Court did not accept. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the dismissal of this suit was manifestly unjust (ground 3).
Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.