Murphy v. Peters et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALFRED G. MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE PETERS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:22-cv-00008-SLG
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTESTATION
Before the Court at Docket 8, self-represented prisoner, Alfred G. Murphy
(“Plaintiff”) has filed a post-judgment Motion for Attestation. The Motion for
Attestation requests, “I would like my civil rights reamended. Due to failing to put
civil action amount of damage.”1 Plaintiff includes two affidavits in support of the
Motion for Attestation where he reiterates his disagreements with Defendants—
Judge Peters, Public Defender Daniel Mizinoff, and the Bethel Clerk of Court—and
requests $10,000,000.00 in damages from each defendant.2 Plaintiff also provides
two pages of argument addressing “consistency and law.”3
In a brief summary of the relevant procedural history, Plaintiff filed a
Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was
1 Docket 8 at 1.
2 Docket 8 at 3–4.
3 Docket 8 at 5–6.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 9 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 4:22-cv-00008-SLG, Murphy v. Peters, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Attestation
Page 2 of 4
referred and screened by Magistrate Judge Reardon.4 Judge Reardon found that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim, because Defendants were ineligible for suit under
Section 1983 and recommended dismissal with prejudice.5 This Court reviewed
and adopted Judge Reardon’s Report and Recommendation and a final judgment
issued on August 16, 2022.6 Plaintiff filed his post-judgment Motion for Attestation
on September 2, 2022.7
In order for a federal district court to alter or amend a final judgment, a Court
must evaluate Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that a “motion to alter or amend a judgment must
be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”8 The Rule grants a
district court an opportunity to ‘“to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately
following’ its decision.”9 Rule 59(e) does not prescribe “specific grounds for a
motion to amend or alter[;]” thus, “the district court enjoys considerable discretion
in granting or denying the motion.”10 However, relief under Rule 59(e) is granted
4 Dockets 1 & 5.
5 Docket 5 at 5–9.
6 Dockets 6 & 7.
7 Docket 8.
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
9 Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep't of
Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982).
10 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon,
197 F.3d 1253 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curium) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 9 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 4:22-cv-00008-SLG, Murphy v. Peters, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Attestation
Page 3 of 4
in only “highly unusual circumstances,” because amending a judgment after entry
is “an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly[.]”11
Generally, there are four grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): (1) to correct
a court’s manifest error of law or fact; (2) “newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence”; (3) to prevent “manifest injustice”; or (4) or because of an
“intervening change in controlling law.”12 A party should not be using Rule 59(e)
to present new arguments or evidence that could have been reasonably raised
earlier.13 Moreover, a party “must show more than a disagreement with the Court's
decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court
before rendering its original decision[.]”14
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attestation 1) attempts to amend his Complaint
by specifying the damages sought against each defendant; and 2) reiterates his
disagreements with Defendants.15 As a threshold matter, a litigant may not amend
a complaint after a final judgment.16 While Plaintiff is correct that he did not specify
the amount of damages sought in his Complaint,17 this does not change the
11 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
12 Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111.
13 Id. at 1112.
14 Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063,
1070 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
15 Docket 8 at 1–3.
16 See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 58–60.
17 Docket 1 at 2 & 8; Docket 5 at 4.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 9 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 4:22-cv-00008-SLG, Murphy v. Peters, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Attestation
Page 4 of 4
controlling legal analysis—all Defendants are immune for suit under Section
1983.18 Plaintiff’s additional arguments request “consistency and law,” which
liberally construed, discuss Plaintiff’s concerns with his current counsel and that
the law is being inconsistently applied in his ongoing state court criminal
proceeding, State of Alaska v. Alfred Murphy, Case No. 4EM-20-00190CR.19
Plaintiff does not allege or otherwise argue any of the four grounds for relief under
Rule 59(e). Instead, the Motion for Attestation disagrees with the Court’s decision
and reiterates Plaintiff’s prior allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiff raises no grounds
that merit the extraordinary relief amending or altering the judgment in this action.
Therefore, the Motion for Attestation at Docket 8 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2022 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 Dockets 5 & 6 (Recommended and adopted analysis that public defenders are not state actors
under Section 1983 and that judges and clerks of court are immune from suit. See Polk Ctny v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (establishing that a public defender is not a state actor pursuant
to Section 1983); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining the
functions of judicial immunity); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (prohibiting suits against judicial officers); Mullis
v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (extending quasi-
judicial immunity to court clerks).
19 Docket 8 at 5–6. The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s ongoing state court criminal matter.
Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399
F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
Case 4:22-cv-00008-SLG-KFR Document 9 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 4