United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
WILLIAM E. JANNISCH, Plaintiff,
D. BATES, J. WARD, LEROY KIRKEGARD, STEVE KREMER, and K. HORSWILL, Defendants.
L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court.
William Jannisch filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging Defendants violated his rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. when they confiscated
and destroyed his property. (Complaint, Doc. 2.) On November
26, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' substantive
motion for summary judgment, this matter was dismissed, and
judgment was entered. (Docs. 61, 62.) On December 26, 2018,
Mr. Jannisch filed a Rule 59 and 60 Motion to Alter/Amend a
Judgment and for Relief from a Judgment due to an Oversight.
(Doc. 63.) On the same day, he filed a notice of appeal.
(Doc. 64.) The Ninth Circuit has held Mr. Jannisch's
appeal in abeyance pending resolution of his motion to
alter/amend judgment. (Doc. 66.)
Ninth Circuit set forth the following grounds justifying
reconsideration under Rule 59(e):
(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of
law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion
is necessary to present newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice: or (4) if the amendment is
justified by an intervening change in controlling law.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111
(9th Cir. 2011). A Rule 59(e) motion "must be filed no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment."
60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence could not have been discovered before
the time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying
relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of
entry of judgment is considered under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e); a later-filed motion is considered under
Rule 60(b). United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing,
Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr.
Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, Mr.
Jannisch's signed and dated his motion on December 20,
2018, which was within 28 days of the November 26, 2018
Judgment. Accordingly, the Motion will be analyzed pursuant
to Rule 59(e), although the analysis and ruling would be the
same if analyzed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2).
Jannisch's argues Defendants did not meet their burden of
demonstrating administrative remedies were available because
he argues "all local remedies are obviously
futile." (Doc. 63 at 1.) Defendants correctly argue that
their failure to exhaust motion for summary judgment was
denied on November 16, 2017. (Doc. 48.) As exhaustion was not
the basis of the decision in this case, it cannot be a basis
to alter or amend the judgment.
Mr. Jannisch argues that Defendants failed to provide all
information regarding a confiscation and destruction log.
(Doc. 63 at 2.) As Defendants point out, however, this is a
discovery dispute which has not been raised before. The Court
will not alter or amend a judgment based upon a discovery
issue raised at this late date given that Mr. Jannisch failed
to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 26.3(c).
Jannisch also argues that Defendants failed to comply with
the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 63 at 2.) He argues no
dispositive motions were filed before the November 3, 2017
deadline set in the Scheduling Order and that defense counsel
did not assume responsibility for convening a conference of
all parties to prepare a final pretrial order. However,
Defendants filed their dispositive substantive motion for
summary judgment on November 3, 3017 (Doc. 44) and the
responsibility for convening a conference to prepare a final
pretrial order only applies if no dispositive motions were
filed. (Doc. 20 at 8, ¶ II(7).)
Mr. Jannisch argues Defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity but he does not argue an error of law or fact, he
does not present newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence or that a different ruling is necessary to prevent a
manifest injustice. The Court sees no basis to overturn its
prior ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
upon the foregoing, the Court issues the following:
Jannisch's Rule 59 and 60 Motion to Alter/Amend a
Judgment and for Relief from a Judgment due to ...