United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Kent Richard Ellis' Motion to
Reconsider. Dkt. 125. For the following reasons, Ellis'
Motion is DENIED.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 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, 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 proving 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).
reviewing the Order granting Defendants' motions for
summary judgment and the Parties' briefing on the issue
of reconsideration, the Court finds that Ellis has not
carried his burden under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), and
therefore will deny his motion. The Court will briefly
address the arguments included in Ellis' motion to
Ellis argues that the Court erred in calculating the statute
of limitations applicable to his claims. Specifically, Ellis
invokes the Continuing Violations Doctrine to argue that his
claims were timely. Dkt 125 at 3-5. As the Court noted in its
summary judgment opinion, Ellis, who was represented by
counsel through the summary judgment proceedings,
failed to raise the Doctrine in his initial briefing. It is
too late for him to do so now. Furthermore, even if the Court
excused Ellis' tardiness in raising the issue, the
Doctrine is unlikely to save his claims. Ellis'
healthcare was delivered by different healthcare providers at
discrete points in time. Thus, the Doctrine has little, if
any, effect on this case.
Ellis asserts that the Court wrongly granted summary judgment
to P.A. Takagi, Dr. Young, N.P. Gelok, and Corizon.
Ellis' assertion rests on his belief that the Court
wrongly evaluated the evidence in the case. This line of
argument, however, is not an appropriate basis for a motion
to reconsider. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,
Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. With respect to Dr. Young, Ellis
seeks to introduce excerpts from Balla Case
Monitoring Meetings. Dkt. 125-1. As Defendants correctly
point out, this evidence was available at the time Ellis
filed his motion opposing summary judgment. Dkt. 128 at 6.
Therefore, the records do not constitute “newly
discovered evidence” upon which a motion under Rule
60(b) would be appropriate. School Dist No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263. Additionally, the evidence put forth by Ellis
does little to advance Ellis' claims. Of the two
Exhibits, only Exhibit A has any real relevancy to Ellis'
case. In it, Dr. Young explains why, in some instances, a
specialist's recommendation may be overridden in favor of
conservative care. Dkt. 125-1 at 2-3. This same issue was
raised repeatedly in Ellis' original briefing at summary
judgment and was rejected by the Court. The Court remains
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Ellis' Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. ...