Hasan Sheikh v. Loretta Lynch et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01873

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{31}} Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HASAN SHEIKH, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01873-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 9 ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 10 THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Re: Dkt. No. 31 11 Defendants. 12 On December 1, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of Northern District of California United States District Court 13 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 30.) On December 29, 2015, by the prescribed deadline, plaintiff filed a 14 motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing the 15 Court "committed clear error" in its December 1, 2015 Order. (Dkt. No. 31 at 3.)1 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment 17 where: "1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 18 judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable 19 evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening 20 change in controlling law." Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th 21 Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) is generally seen as "an 'extraordinary 22 remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'" 23 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A motion under Rule 59(e) "should not be 24 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 25 26 1 The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral 27 argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th 28 Cir. 1991). 1 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 2 law.ˮ 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) "may not 3 be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been 4 raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) 5 (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed. 6 1995)); see also Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) ("A district 7 court does not abuse its discretion when it disregards legal arguments made for the first time on a 8 motion to amend."). A district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying a 9 motion to amend or alter a judgment under Rule 59(e). See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 10 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 11 In his motion, plaintiff largely restates his earlier arguments regarding the appropriate 12 method by which to calculate an absence of more than sixth months, which the Court rejected in Northern District of California United States District Court 13 granting defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also raises new arguments based on Federal Rule 14 of Civil Procedure 6(a) and Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff 15 does not explain why he failed to raise these authorities and arguments previously. The Court 16 therefore may properly decline to consider them at this juncture. Nevertheless, having reviewed 17 the newly cited authorities, the Court finds that they do not clearly call for a contrary result. 18 Indeed, in Minasyan, the Ninth Circuit specifically references and distinguishes Lagandaon v. 19 Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2004), one of the cases relied upon by the Court in its December 20 1, 2015 Order. Lagandaon is more closely analogous than Minasyan to the statute at issue here, as 21 both the statute at issue here and the one at issue in Lagandaon do not include a "within x days 22 after" formulation but instead merely call for a determination of the length of a period of time 23 measured in "months" or "years." The motion is DENIED. 24 This Order terminates Docket Number 31. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 26, 2016 27 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 2