United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Correct
Misunderstandings (Dkt. 8). For the reasons stated below, the
Court will deny the motion.
25, 2017, the Clerk of the Court conditionally filed
Petitioner Tracy Jenson's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(Dkt. 2). The Court reviewed the Petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, and found that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim. See Nov. 13,
2016 Memorandum Decision and Order, Dkt. 6. Thus, the
Court entered judgment denying the Petition and dismissing
this action. Judgment, Dkt. 7. Petitioner filed the
instant Motion on December 11, 2017. See Motion,
Dkt. 8. The Court will construe Petitioner's Motion as
one to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or for relief
from final judgment under Rule 60(b).
Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is not intended to provide
litigants with a “second bite at the apple.”
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001).
Instead, 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). A losing party cannot use a
post-judgment motion to reconsider as a means of litigating
old matters or presenting arguments that could have been
raised before the entry of judgment. School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).
result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion to
alter or amend judgment may be granted: (1) the motion is
necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) the
moving party presents newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent
manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in
the law. Turner v. Burlington North. Santa Fe R.R.
Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the Court may
reconsider a final judgment or order based on: “(1)
mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or
discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which
would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty, Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. This Rule must be
used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest
injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to
prevent or correct an erroneous judgment. See Lal v.
California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). The
moving party bears the burden of providing the existence of
fraud, misconduct, or any other ground for relief.
Atchison, T & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 246 F.2d
846, 849 (9th Cir. 1957).
motion to alter or amend, or for relief from judgment may be
granted only in limited circumstances. Petitioner has failed
to establish that any of those circumstances apply here.
Rather, Petitioner's motion seeks to clarify the
Court's understanding of the factual allegations
underlying his Petition. As such, much of the motion is taken
up with restating and re-alleging facts and legal conclusions
previously raised in the initial Petition. To the extent
Petitioner alleges new facts, he fails to explain how they
are either newly discovered or were previously unavailable to
him at the time he filed his Petition.
does Petitioner address the legal deficiencies identified by
the Court in its initial review. There, the Court found it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition, because
Petitioner failed to articulate either a clear and certain
claim, or a plainly prescribed nondiscretionary duty owed
him. See Nov. 11, 207 Order, at 5, Dkt. 6;
Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir.
2003) (finding that mandamus relief “is an
extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal
official to perform a duty only if: (1) the individual's
claim is clear and certain; (2) the official's duty is
nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as
to be free from doubt, and (3) no other adequate remedy is
available.”). To the extent Petitioner contends that
the Court's conclusions are in error, he points to no
legal authority supporting his claim. Instead, he offers no
more than his own alternative interpretation of the statutory
and regulatory framework upon which the Court based its
earlier decision. Petitioner's disagreement with the
Court's analysis is not evidence that the Court's
decision was reached in error, and does not justify
the Court found that Petitioner could have availed himself of
other remedies. See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602,
616, (1984) (“The common law writ of mandamus, as
codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a
remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other
avenues of relief. . . .”). Petitioner does not address
this issue, other than to reiterate that his Petition seeks
redress for a different claim from those underlying previous
actions in this court and others. He fails to allege,
however, that there was no other available or ...