United States District Court, D. Idaho
March 12, 2014
RICKIE STORM, Plaintiff,
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, n/k/a CORIZON, INC.; MICHAEL TAKAGI, P.A.; CATHY FITZGERALD, P.A.; DR. LOIS ADRIAN; DR. PATMAS; SETH YOURKETTER, P.A.; CARTNEY RICH; CONNIE SMOCK; ANITA TRAVIS; LARRY L. HYNES; JAN EPP; DIANA OBENAUER; AND JEFF SHAHAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
On September 18, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this civil rights action. (Dkt. 90, 91.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Dkt. 92.)
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) (internal quotation marks omitted). A losing party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments that could have been raised before the entry of judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). As a result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of fact or law; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence; (3) reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in the law. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff's Motion is nothing more than a disagreement with the Court's legal analysis and an attempt to relitigate the issues already decided against him. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 92) is DENIED.