United States District Court, D. Idaho
LYNN WINMILL U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
17, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in
this civil rights case, as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted, and entered
judgment against Plaintiff. (Dkt. 12, 13.) Plaintiff has now
filed a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 15.) He has also
filed a Motion for Leave to Request Chief Judge David C. Nye
to Intervene, which the Court construes as a request for
disqualification of the undersigned judge. (Dkt. 18.)
Request for Disqualification
has not shown that 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or
governing disqualification of judges, or any case
interpreting those sections, applies in this case.
Disqualification is not required where only vague allegations
of bias and prejudice are asserted, or where those
allegations arise from the adjudication of claims or cases by
the court during the course of litigation. Such alleged
errors are “the basis for appeal, not recusal.”
Focus Media, Inc. v. Nat’l Broadcasting Co. (In re
Focus Media, Inc.), 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff’s allegation that the undersigned judge has a
conflict is incorrect. Finally, Plaintiff has made no showing
that the Court’s previous decisions in this case were
the “products of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism
that made fair judgment impossible.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s request for disqualification will be denied
for lack of a viable legal theory and insufficient supporting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
may request reconsideration of a final judgment (1) under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e), by filing a
motion to alter or amend the judgment, or (2) under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), by filing a motion for relief
from judgment. Because Plaintiff filed the Motion for
Reconsideration within 28 days of the entry of final judgment
in this matter, the Court will consider the Motion under Rule
59(e). See American Ironworkers & Erectors, Inc. v.
N. American Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th
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. 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).
first claims that the Court misconstrued his claims in this
action. He states that, instead of alleging that he had a
constitutional right to counsel in one of his previous civil
cases, he actually intended to assert the following claims:
1. Is the District Courts [sic] Pro bono Program/Policy
implemented by the District Court and the named and unnamed
defendants constitutionally binding upon the Court and the
2. Did the defendants violate the plaintiffs [sic]
constitutional rights against discrimination, differential
treatment, denial of equal protection and due process by not
honoring the policy they helped create along with the
(Dkt. 15 at 3.) Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration
also “presents a third question”:
3. Does the 6th. and 14th. amendment right to counsel attach
in a prisoners [sic] civil rights complaint, after the court
grants the prisoners in forma pauperis request for counsel,
and the court has implemented a program/policy which
undeniably states that it ...