United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
ALTER JUDGMENT AND AMEND COMPLAINT
J. SHELBY CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
September 21, 2018, concluding Plaintiff failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, the court granted
Defendantsâ Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 28, 32, & 53.)
Plaintiff then filed two motions to alter or amend the
judgment; and on July 31, 2019, filed a motion to amend his
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
support of his motions to alter or amend the judgment,
Plaintiff asserts: (1) he lacks a law library to allow him to
better assert his claims, (2) pending motions were not
explicitly ruled upon in the dismissal order, and (3) his
claims had merit (for reasons repetitive of his original
arguments). (Doc. Nos. 55 & 58.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) reads: “A motion to alter
or amend judgment must be filed not later than 28 days after
the entry of the judgment.” Such a motion
may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that could not have been
obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or
(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 2014
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule 59(e)
is not to be used to rehash arguments that have been
addressed or to present supporting facts that could have been
presented in earlier filings. Id. Reconsideration of
a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly. See Templet v. HydroChem,
Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); Allender v.
Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.
2006); Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills, 643
F.App'x 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2016) (relief under R. 59(e)
Blake v. Jpay, No. 18-3146-SAC, 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 150310, at *4-5 (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019).
has not shown any of these three grounds for relief exist in
this case. First, his lack of a law library does not excuse
him from stating meaningful claims. If Plaintiff believes he
has been denied the legal access guaranteed him by the
Federal Constitution, he may file a separate civil-rights
complaint alleging that separate claim.
motions pending at the time a dismissal order is entered are
understood to be implicitly denied. And, third,
Plaintiff’s rehashing of his original arguments is
does not meet the exacting standard for relief under Rule
59(e). In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard
required for this court to alter or amend its September 21,
2018 Order and Judgment, and that ruling stands.
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) reads: “[A] party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.” Justice
does not so require here. First, “untimeliness alone is
a sufficient reason to deny leave to amend.” Frank
v. U.S. West, Inc., F.3d 1357, 1367 (10th Cir. 1993). It
is hard to imagine what could be more untimely than a motion
to amend filed ten months after entry of final judgment.
Second, the proposed amended complaint does not cure the
deficiencies of the original complaint. Id.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs post-judgment
motions are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 55, 58, &