United States District Court, D. Alaska
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, JUDGE
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
matter is before the Court on the Defendant Barbara
Strain's successive Motion for Reconsideration (the
“Motion”). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), Strain
requests the Court reconsider its September 27, 2019, Order
Granting Reconsideration and, Upon Reconsideration Denying
Motion to Vacate (“Order on
Reconsideration”). Strain argues that the Court should
reconsider its Order on Reconsideration in light of the
recent district court decision in United States v.
Chea, which addressed the same legal issue as the
Court's Order but arrived at the opposite
motion to reconsider a final appealable order is
appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).
Under Rule 60(b)(6), courts may relieve a party from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for any reason that justifies
relief. The Ninth Circuit counsels that reconsideration is
“an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” The Court may reconsider an order only
“where: ‘(1) the decision is clearly erroneous
and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2)
intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration
appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was
adduced at a subsequent trial.'” At the outset,
the Court notes that there is nothing in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Civil Procedure that
provides for multiple motions for reconsideration of an
order. The recent decision in Chea was
decided by a district court whose decisions do not bind this
Court.Thus, Strain has not identified an
intervening change in controlling authority that would make
reconsideration appropriate. Nor is the Court persuaded that
its own decision was “clearly erroneous.” At
most, Chea indicates that reasonable jurists can
disagree on an unsettled issue. The most proper and able
vehicle to settle disagreements between district courts is
appeal to a higher court rather than successive motions for
reconsideration. Therefore, Strain has not raised proper
grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6).
Strain's successive Motion for Reconsideration at docket
279 is DENIED.
at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United
States District Judge.
 Dkt. 279 (Motion).
 Id. at 1-2.
 No. 4:98-cr-40003-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct.
2, 2019). Namely, whether Hobbs Act Robbery constitutes a
“crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §
 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d
934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Kona Enterprises, Inc.
v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
See also Richey v. Borough, No. 3:14-cv-00170-JWS,
2015 WL 1962880, at *1 (D. Alaska Apr. 30, 2015)
(“Because of the interest in finality, however, courts
should grant motions for reconsideration
 Mills v. Wood, No.
4:10-CV-00033-RRB, 2016 WL 10651094 at *1 (D. Alaska Dec. 1,
2016) (quoting Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489
(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). See also Richey, 2015 WL
1962880, at *1 (“According to [ ] case law,
reconsideration should be granted in three circumstances:
First, upon the discovery of material facts that were
previously unavailable or undiscoverable through reasonable
diligence; second, if the court overlooked material facts
that were presented to it before it made its decision; and
third, if there is a change in the law after the court's
decision.” (internal citations omitted)); United
States v. CNA Fin. Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1096 (D.
Alaska Jul. 12, 2005) (citing School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).
 The absence of a rule on point is
unsurprising, as a successive motion for reconsideration that
seeks to relitigate issues twice considered by a court wastes
valuable judicial resources and belies finality. See,
e.g., Adams v. Hedgpeth, No. LA CV 11-03852
VBF-FFM, 2016 WL 4035607, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2016)
(noting that post-judgment motions that continue to
re-evaluate judgments can divert the court's time and
resources from other matters) (citing In re Shelbourne N.
Water St., L.P., Debtor (Kelleher v. Nat'l Asset Loan
Mgmt., Ltd.), No. 13 B 44315, 2016 WL 1730089, at *12
(N.D. Ill. Bankr. Apr. 28, 2016) (“[S]erious and
studied disregard for the orderly process of justice”
had “become all too familiar in federal courts”
and “[e]xamples of this are filing multiple motions for
reconsideration”) (quotation omitted), and Veasley
v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 12-CV-13642,
2014 WL 6686765, at *2 ...