United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside
Judgment (Doc. 86) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. 89). Also pending before the Court
is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to
Set Aside Judgment (“Motion to Strike”) (Doc.
87). The Court now rules on the motions.
16, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment (Doc. 83) in
favor of Defendants, pursuant to the Court's Summary
Judgment Order (Doc. 82). On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed
a motion couched as a motion to re-open the case that is
effectively a Motion to Set Aside Judgment. (Doc.
On August 8, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (Doc.
87) Plaintiff's motion as untimely under District of
Arizona Local Rule Civil (“Local Rule”) 7.2(g).
LRCiv 7.2(g). Plaintiff later filed a separate Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. 89) on August 14, 2018.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 87)
move to strike Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment
(Doc. 86) by construing the filing as an untimely motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 87 at 1). Local Rule 7.2(g) provides
that, “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for
reconsideration shall be filed no later than fourteen (14)
days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the
subject of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g). However, having
construed Plaintiff's filing as a Motion to Set Aside
Judgment (Doc. 86), the Court will apply the timelines
standard provided by Rule 59(e).
Rule 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Plaintiff filed the
pending Motion (Doc. 86) on August 7, 2018 after the Clerk of
Court entered Judgment (Doc. 83) on July 16, 2018;
approximately 22 days later. In accordance with the 28-day
time period provided by Rule 59(e), the Court deems
Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment (Doc. 86) to be
timely. See Id. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion
to Strike (Doc. 87) is denied.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (Doc.
Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 87) is denied, the
Court next turns to the merits of Plaintiff's Motion to
Set Aside Judgment (Doc. 86).
Ninth Circuit recognizes four grounds for relief under Rule
59(e): “(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (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
controlling law.” Konarski v. Rankin, No.
CV-13-0999-TUC-DCB, 2015 WL 10793428, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct.
21, 2015), aff'd, 710 Fed.Appx. 289 (9th Cir.
2018) (citing Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.
Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)).
59(e) motions may not be used to reexamine the initial
decision or raise arguments that were available to the party
prior to the entry of judgment.” Reyes v. City of
Phoenix, No. CV-17-04741-PHX-JAT, 2018 WL 4377161, at *3
(D. Ariz. Sept. 14, 2018). “Motions for reconsideration
cannot be used merely because a plaintiff disagrees with the
Court's decision.” Id. “Furthermore,
a Rule 59(e) motion offers an ‘extraordinary
remedy' to be used ‘sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources.'”
Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite
construing the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally,
“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not
be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of
record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362,
1364 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion is timely, but fails to
satisfy the Rule's standards for relief. First, Plaintiff
does not allege, nor does the Court find, any manifest errors
of law or fact upon which the judgment is based. (See
generally Doc. 86). Second, Plaintiff does not present
any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.
(Id.). Rather, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments
raised in her Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 69) regarding Defendants' failure to
provide information regarding the alleged incident.
(Compare Doc. 69 at 3 (“Despite requests for
production, Defendant [sic] was unable to produce any
[requested information]”) with Doc. 86 at 1-2
(“Defendant[s] refused to provide information . . .
Defendants refused to provide any reports”)). As the
Court reasoned in its Summary Judgment Order (Doc. 82),
Plaintiff “bears the burden of producing affirmative
evidence that would support a jury verdict . ...