The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:22-cv-1211 WBS CSK P
13
Plaintiff,
14
v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
15 TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
PITTSLEY,
16
Defendant.
17
18 ----oo0oo----
19 On October 1, 2025, this court rejected the Magistrate
20 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and ruled that defendant was
21 entitled to qualified immunity. (See Docket No. 47.) This court
22 correspondingly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment
23 and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See id.)
24 Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment under Federal
25 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the grounds that the court made
26 plain errors of law and fact. (Docket No. 49 at 1-2.)
27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “amending
28 a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which
1 should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d
2
1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). “In
3
general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e)
4
motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct
5
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2)
6
if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or
7
previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary
8
to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is
9
justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Id.
10
A Rule 59(e) motion “should not merely present
11
arguments previously raised, or which could have been raised in
12
the initial summary judgment motion.” United States v. Westlands
13
Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (Wanger,
14
J.) (collecting cases). Further, “[m]ere dissatisfaction with
15
the court's order, or belief that the court is wrong in its
16
decision, are not grounds for relief under Rule 59(e).” Witkin
17
v. Wagner, No. 220-cv-00267 WBS CKD, 2022 WL 3371697, at *1 (E.D.
18
Cal. Aug. 16, 2022).
19
In his motion, plaintiff chiefly argues that the court
20
committed “plain error of fact and law” by determining that
21
defendant did not deprive plaintiff of constitutionally
22
sufficient opportunities to exercise during the sixty-day period
23
at-issue. (See Docket No. 49 at 5-10.)
24
However, the court expressly declined to address
25
whether defendant’s conduct deprived plaintiff of his
26
constitutional rights. (See Docket No. 47 at 3.) The court held
27
solely that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because
28
ee nn enn en en en I IIE OSE OE OED NE
the “circumstances under which a temporary deprivation of outdoor
exercise for an inmate not subject to continuous and long-term
segregation or otherwise harsh conditions rises to the level of a
[constitutional] violation” were not clearly established. (Id.
° at 7 (citation modified).) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
that the court “manifest[ly] err[ed]” - or erred at all - in so
holding. Herron, 634 F.3d at 1111.
8 Plaintiff’s remaining arguments express
° “dissatisfaction with the court's [prior] order,” Wagner, 2022 WL
3371697, at *1, paraphrase “arguments [he] previously raised,” or
proffer arguments “that should have been raised in [his] initial
summary judgment motion,” Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d
at 1130. These arguments do not warrant the “extraordinary
remedy” of relief under Rule 59(e). Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32
F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation modified).
re IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to
alter or amend the judgment (Docket No. 49) be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED. . .
19 Dated: October 30, 2025 hi blew A hh hee
20 WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28