Fred Feleki Martinez v. Peterson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff Fred Feleki Martinez’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment granting summary judgment to defendant Peterson. The court held that the motion merely rehashed previously rejected arguments, identified no new evidence or intervening change in law, and did not establish clear error; the plaintiff’s request for a ruling was also denied as moot.

Holdings

1. A Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments previously presented or for raising arguments or evidence that could have been raised before judgment.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to alter or amend the judgment because the motion identified no new evidence, presented no new argument, and did not show clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
3. Plaintiff's request for a ruling was denied as moot because the court resolved the pending Rule 59(e) motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) based on newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. Whether plaintiff's motion improperly rehashed arguments and evidence that had already been considered before entry of judgment.
3. Whether plaintiff's request for a ruling remained justiciable after adjudication of the Rule 59(e) motion.

Disposition

other