Rollen v. Hicks

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff Van Keyshone Rollen’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his First Amended Complaint. The court treated the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and concluded that Plaintiff had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or grounds warranting reconsideration under the local rules. The case remained closed.

Holdings

1. A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), rather than a Rule 60(b) motion.
2. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Plaintiff did not establish newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or facts demonstrating that he could cure the defects in his First Amended Complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b).
2. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or other grounds warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e).

Disposition

other