Rancourt et al v. Bolger et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LOREN RANCOURT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HON. CHIEF JUSTICE JOEL
BOLGER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00189-JMK
ORDER RE:
POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Before the Court at Docket 71 and Docket 74 are two post-judgment motions
from Plaintiff Loren Rancourt. On January 19, 2023, the Court entered a Final Judgment
in the above-captioned case.1 Mr. Rancourt filed a Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2023.2
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an appeals case number and scheduling order
on January 27, 2023.3 	Mr. Rancourt filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Dismissing
Complaint on January 30, 2023.4 Mr. Rancourt filed a Motion and Affidavit for Permission
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on February 21, 2023.5 On April 4, 2023, the Ninth Circuit
1 Docket 69.
2 Docket 70.
3 Docket 72; Docket 73.
4 Docket 71.
5 Docket 74.
Case 3:21-cv-00189-JMK Document 76 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 5

Rancourt v. Bolger 	Case No. 3:21-cv-00189-JMK
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions 	Page 2
Court of Appeals held the appellate briefing in abeyance pending the resolution of the
Motion at Docket 71.6 This Court now addresses both outstanding motions.
At Docket 71, Mr. Rancourt “asks the court to take the tin foil hat off this
case[.]”7 	Interspersed with hypothetical questions and profanity, Mr. Rancourt broadly
asserts that a “facial challenge applies to this case” as does a “clear exception to Rooker
Feldman.”8 	Motions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.3(h) only
apply to non-dispositive court orders.9 Procedurally, such motions are limited to five pages
and must be filed within seven days of the Court’s order.10 Substantively, the Court denies
motions for reconsideration unless the movant demonstrates a (1) manifest error or law or
fact; (2) discovery of new materials facts; or (3) an intervening change of the law.11 Based
on all of the above, Docket 71 does not present proper grounds as a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).
Even 	liberally 	construed, 	Docket 	71 	does 	not 	present 	grounds 	for
consideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). 	Rule 59(e) allows a
district court to alter or amend a final judgment. 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.”12
The Rule “gives a district court the chance ‘to rectify its own mistakes in the period
6 Docket 75.
7 Docket 71 at 1.
8 Docket 71 at 3–6.
9 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).
10 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(2).
11 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(1).
12 Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e).
Case 3:21-cv-00189-JMK Document 76 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 5

Rancourt v. Bolger 	Case No. 3:21-cv-00189-JMK
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions 	Page 3
immediately following’ its decision.”13 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.”14 	However, relief under Rule 59(e) is granted in only
“highly 	unusual 	circumstances,” 	because 	amending 	a 	judgment 	after 	entry 	is 	“an
extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly[.]”15
Generally, there are four grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): (1) to correct
a court’s manifest error of law or fact; (2) to present “newly discovered or previously
unavailable 	evidence”; 	(3) 	to 	prevent 	“manifest 	injustice”; 	or 	(4) 	because 	of 	an
“intervening change in controlling law.”16 	A party should not be using Rule 59(e) to
present new arguments or evidence that could have been reasonably raised earlier.17
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[.]”18 	While procedurally correct under Rule 59(e), Docket 71 does not
contain 	arguments 	that 	merit 	altering 	or 	amending 	the 	Final 	Judgment. 	At 	best,
Mr. Rancourt reiterates his previous arguments that the Court considered and denied in its
13 Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep't
of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)).
14 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)).
15 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
16 Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111.
17 Id. at 1112.
18 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 omitted).
Case 3:21-cv-00189-JMK Document 76 Filed 05/16/23 Page 3 of 5

Rancourt v. Bolger 	Case No. 3:21-cv-00189-JMK
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions 	Page 4
Order at Docket 68, and at worst, Mr. Rancourt simply expresses his dissatisfaction with
the Court’s ruling.19
Alternatively, a federal district court may apply Rule 60(b) of Federal Civil
Procedure to reconsider a final judgment on either legal or factual grounds. 	Rule 60(b)
permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for any of the following reasons:
(1) 	mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	or 	excusable
neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) 	fraud 	(whether 	previously 	called 	intrinsic 	or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) 	the 	judgment 	has 	been 	satisfied, 	released, 	or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Docket 71 fails to make any arguments, even liberally construed, that merit further review
under Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, the motion at Docket 71 is DENIED. 	In accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B), Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal as to the Final
Judgment in this case is effective immediately. However, if Plaintiff intends to appeal the
19 See generally Docket 71.
Case 3:21-cv-00189-JMK Document 76 Filed 05/16/23 Page 4 of 5

Rancourt v. Bolger 	Case No. 3:21-cv-00189-JMK
Order Re: Post-Judgment Motions 	Page 5
Court’s decision made in this Order, Plaintiff has 30 days to file an Amended Notice of
Appeal.20
In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 3(e), the
motion at Docket 74 is GRANTED.
All further filings, except an Amended Notice of Appeal, should be directed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. 	The Court also guides Mr. Rancourt to reference and comply with the
instructions given in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Order issued on April 4, 2023, and
cross-docketed at Docket 75.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
Case 3:21-cv-00189-JMK Document 76 Filed 05/16/23 Page 5 of 5