Slaikeu v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JONATHAN SLAIKEU,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-RRB
ORDER RE MOTION TO RECONSIDER
On February 1, 2023, the Court issued a Screening Order in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissing Plaintiff’s action with prejudice.1 Plaintiff filed an
appeal to the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2023 and an “Amended Complaint to
the appeal.”2 	Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider on February 15, 20233 and a
Motion for Expedited Consideration of his Motion to Reconsider April 14, 2023.4
For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 22 is DENIED.
Amended Complaint & New Allegations
As an initial matter, the Court shall not consider the new information
contained in the documents filed with the Court5 to the extent it relates to facts not
1 Docket 15.
2 Dockets 17–18.
3 Docket 22.
4 Docket 23.
5 Dockets 18, 22.
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 24 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-RRB, Slaikeu v. Alaska Dep’t of Corrections, et al.
Order re Motion to Reconsider
Page 2 of 4
previously raised in this case and events Plaintiff claims have occurred since this
case was closed.6 	The Court takes judicial notice7 of Plaintiff’s other pending
actions containing what appears to be similar factual allegations regarding recent
retaliation and discipline.8 	Plaintiff’s pending actions and any additional future
actions he chooses to file must be screened and addressed separately from this
order.
Motion to Reconsider
A motion to reconsider only applies to non-dispositive orders.9 	In order for
a Court to alter or amend a final judgment, a Court must evaluate it under
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.10 	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.”11 The Rule grants a district court an opportunity ‘“to rectify its
6 See Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1112 (a party should not be using Rule 59(e) to present new
arguments or evidence that could have been reasonably raised earlier.); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a) and Local Civil Rule 15.1 (explaining the proper procedure to amending a complaint).
7 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 Fed. R. Evid. 201 (a court can take judicial
notice of its own files and records.).
8 See Slaikeu v. Anderson et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK; Slaikeu v. Masse et al., Case
No. 3:23-cv-00053-JMK; and Slaikeu v. Mcclenahan et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00052-JMK.
9 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).
10 Magnus Pac. Corp. v. Advanced Explosives Demolition, Inc., 2014 WL 3533622, at *1 (D. Idaho
July 15, 2014) (“the Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts should treat motions to reconsider “as
motions to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).” ).
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 24 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-RRB, Slaikeu v. Alaska Dep’t of Corrections, et al.
Order re Motion to Reconsider
Page 3 of 4
own mistakes in the period immediately following’ its decision.”12 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.”13
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[.]”14
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.”15 	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[.]”16
Rule 59(e) is not intended to give litigants “a second bite of the apple” or an
“additional chance to sway the judge.”17
12 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)).
13 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).
14 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
15 Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111.
16 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).
17 Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1133 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 24 Filed 04/17/23 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-RRB, Slaikeu v. Alaska Dep’t of Corrections, et al.
Order re Motion to Reconsider
Page 4 of 4
While the Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s plight, Plaintiff does not
set forth any valid grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s
analysis in its order dismissing his case with prejudice. Upon review, the Court did
not commit any clear error or subject Plaintiff to any manifest injustice in its prior
order. 	Plaintiff’s challenges are more appropriately addressed on appeal,18 and
Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit in this case.19 Plaintiff should review
and comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Local Rules of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,20 and all orders from the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration at Docket 22 is DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 23 is DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
18 Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a party must overcome a
“high hurdle” to obtain relief under Rule 59(e) since only “highly unusual circumstances” will justify
its application); Soetantyo, 976 F. Supp. at 1302 (“A motion for reconsideration should not be
used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought through.”).
19 Dockets 18–21.
20 The most current version of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ninth Circuit Rules and
Circuit Advisory Committee Notes are available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/rules/.
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 24 Filed 04/17/23 Page 4 of 4