Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. CAMPA, CR 12-65-GF-BMM. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Montana Number: infdco20160728c17 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BRIAN MORRIS , District Judge . On June 6, 2016, the Court denied Defendant/Movant Campa's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. A certificate of appealability was also denied. On June 21, 2016, Campa filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Relief under Rule 59 is an "extraordinary remedy" that should be "used sparingly." McDowell v. Calderon, 1
More

ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On June 6, 2016, the Court denied Defendant/Movant Campa's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A certificate of appealability was also denied.

On June 21, 2016, Campa filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Relief under Rule 59 is an "extraordinary remedy" that should be "used sparingly." McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). A litigant's disagreement with a decision or view of the facts underlying it is not included among the few circumstances supporting relief under Rule 59. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Disagreement is all Campa's motion offers.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Campa's motion under Rule 59(e) (Doc. 631) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because reasonable jurists would agree that the motion does not meet the standards of Rule 59(e).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer