Opinion
Case No. 3:97-cr-00004
10-22-2019
United States v. Barbara Strain
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS The matter is before the Court on the Defendant Barbara Strain's successive Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion"). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), Strain requests the Court reconsider its September 27, 2019, Order Granting Reconsideration and, Upon Reconsideration Denying Motion to Vacate ("Order on Reconsideration"). Strain argues that the Court should reconsider its Order on Reconsideration in light of the recent district court decision in United States v. Chea, which addressed the same legal issue as the Court's Order but arrived at the opposite conclusion. A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Under Rule 60(b)(6), courts may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any reason that justifies relief. The Ninth Circuit counsels that reconsideration is "an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." The Court may reconsider an order only "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.'" 2 At the outset, the Court notes that there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Civil Procedure that provides for multiple motions for reconsideration of an order. The recent decision in Chea was decided by a district court whose decisions do not bind this Court. Thus, Strain has not identified an intervening change in controlling authority that would make reconsideration appropriate. Nor is the Court persuaded that its own decision was "clearly erroneous." At most, Chea indicates that reasonable jurists can disagree on an unsettled issue. The most proper and able vehicle to settle disagreements between district courts is appeal to a higher court rather than successive motions for reconsideration. Therefore, Strain has not raised proper grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, Strain's successive Motion for Reconsideration at docket 279 is DENIED. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge. DATE: October 22, 2019.