United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Camboni's Motion to
Vacate.(Doc. 60). The motion was filed in response
to this Court's August 15, 2016, Order dismissing
Plaintiff's claims and entering judgment in favor of
Defendants. Having considered Plaintiff's filing,
the Court now rules on the motion.
from judgment may be sought under either Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Plaintiff's motion,
titled “Respectful Notice of Void Judgment, ”
does not set forth which Rule he moves under. The Court must
construe a motion to reconsider a judgment based on the type
of relief that is requested by the movant. Miller v.
Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527
(9th Cir.1983). The rule under which a movant advances for
relief is not determinative. Sea Ranch Ass'n
v. California Coastal Zone Conservation
Comm'ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.
post-judgment motion that seeks substantive change to a
court's decision is properly addressed under Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e). The Rule's drafters intended Rule 59(e) to
“mak[e] clear that the district court possesses the
power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately
following the entry of judgment.” Maxwell v.
Sherman, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61852, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
May 9, 2016) (quoting White v. New Hampshire
Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450
(1982)). Given that Plaintiff's motion clearly alleges
that the Court erred substantively in dismissing the action,
and was filed within twenty-eight days of judgment being
entered, Plaintiff's motion for post-judgment relief is
properly addressed under Rule 59(e).
Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a
previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary
remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.'” Kona
Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). “[A] motion for
reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners,
179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e)
motion may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.
(emphasis in original).
has not brought to the Court's attention any newly
discovered evidence or change in the intervening law, and
thus Plaintiff's motion rests on the theory that the
Court committed clear error in granting Defendants'
motions to dismiss. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890
(citation omitted). Plaintiff asserts that because this
Court's Order dismissing his case “did not result
from the respectfully demanded [j]ury [t]rial”
Plaintiff sought in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is
“not bound” by the judgment. (Doc. 60 at 2).
Plaintiff elaborates on his position, arguing that by virtue
of paying a filing fee to the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, he has “entered into a
contractual relationship” with this Court and must
receive a jury trial on the claims alleged in the First
Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3). Given Plaintiff's
status as a pro se litigant,  the Court reads this to argue
that the Court clearly erred in dismissing Plaintiff's
case prior to a verdict returned by the jury, and that the
Court must reconsider its prior order.
has not cited to any authority in the United States
Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, federal statutory
law, state statutory law, federal case law, or common law to
support his position that as a civil litigant, he is entitled
to a jury trial, regardless of the merits of his
claims. The Court is unaware of any such
authority, and is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument.
The Court finds that it did not clearly err in dismissing the
First Amended Complaint and denying leave to amend, premised
on the reasoning set forth in the August 15, 2016, Order.
(Doc. 58). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (Doc.
60), will be denied.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate, (Doc 60), is
 Plaintiff's motion is not fully
briefed. The Court finds, however, that further briefing will
not aid its decision regarding Plaintiff's argument that
he is entitled to a jury trial on the merits of his claims.
The Seventh Amendment does not preclude dismissing a case
where the claims lack merit or the granting of summary
judgment “where there is no genuine issue of material
fact.” Ch ...