United States District Court, D. Idaho
For Sandy Howard Sims, Plaintiff: Barry L Marcus, Michael R Christian, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MARCUS CHRISTIAN HARDEE & DAVIES LLP, Boise, ID.
For Steven Ellis, in his official capacity as the Director of the Idaho State office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Defendant: Nicholas J Woychick, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Boise, ID.
For Mike Pool, in his official capacity as the Acting Firector of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Ken Salazar, in his official capacity of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, Defendants: Nicholas J Woychick, Warren S Derbidge, LEAD ATTORNEYS, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Boise, ID.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Edward J. Lodge, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court in the above entitled matter is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 28) of the Court's order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 12.) Defendants filed a response to the motion to reconsider (Dkt. 35). No reply was filed by Plaintiff.
Having fully reviewed the record, the Court has determined oral argument would not assist the decision-making process. The Court will therefore decide the motion without a hearing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a
motion to reconsider. However, the Ninth Circuit has stated that motions to reconsider should be treated as motions to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir. 1984). Reconsideration of a final judgment under rule 59(e) is an " extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). As a result, the Ninth Circuit has identified three reasons sufficient to warrant a court's reconsideration of a prior order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in law or fact, to prevent manifest injustice. Id; see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (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 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.).
Plaintiff does not identify the standard or authority upon which he bases his Motion for Reconsideration. However, because Plaintiff does not suggest there has been either a change in controlling law or the discovery of any new evidence, the Court assumes Plaintiff's motion is based on a need to correct clear error in law or fact, to prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration asks the Court to revisit its conclusions regarding the interpretation of the General Mining Law of 1972, 30 U.S.C. § § 22-54 (" Mining Act" ), and more specifically, regarding Defendants' processing of Plaintiff's mill sites patent application under 30 U.S.C. § 42. Plaintiff argues that this Court improperly ordered Defendants to immediately either contest or approve Plaintiff's mill sites patent application, and suggests the Court should ...