Sameer v. Right Moves 4U et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/23/2018. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MAHDU SAMEER,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-886 AWI-EPG
Plaintiff

v.
RIGHT MOVES 4 U; MICHELLE
FRANKLIN; DYLAN CORTINA;
XO MOVING SYSTEMS; CONROY
REMOVALS; FIONA CONROY;
MONICA MCKINLEY; TALBOT
UNDERWRITING RISK SERVICES;
SHIPCO TRANSPORT; and DOES 1-43,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
“REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION”
(Doc. No. 96)

Defendants
On May 22, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice under Rule

18

41(b) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to follow a previous court order instructing her to

19

conform her pleadings to Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” standard. See Doc. No. 95. That

20

same day, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Reconsideration.” See Doc. No. 96.

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides a mechanism for a court to reconsider and

22

alter or amend a prior order. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e); Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

23

F.3d 877, 883 n.6, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const.

24

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is treated as a

25

motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) if it is filed

26

within ten days of entry of judgment.”). “While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider

27

and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

28

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121

1

(9th Cir. 2014); Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the

2

district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

3

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.

4

Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121; Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. This standard is a “high hurdle.” Weeks

5

v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 59(e) motions “may not be used to raise

6

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised

7

earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.

8

In Plaintiff’s “Request for Reconsideration,” she makes no argument as to “newly

9

discovered evidence” or “intervening change in the law,” and makes no credible showing

10

indicating the Court “committed clear error” or the dismissal with prejudice was “manifestly

11

unjust.” Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121; Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. Plaintiff’s motion appears to

12

aver the same arguments previously made concerning her belief in the strength of her case and her

13

status as a pro se litigant; reconsideration is not available to a party who makes the same

14

arguments previously made. Id.; see also Walsh v. Hagee, 316 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding

15

relief from judgment unavailable under Rule 59(e) where the plaintiff raised the same arguments

16

previously raised, thereby failing to show intervening change in controlling case law, new

17

evidence, or need to correct clear error). Further, the Court’s again notes the Order dismissing

18

Plaintiff’s case with prejudice was based on her failure to proffer a “short and plain statement,”

19

despite the Court’s prior guidance and grant to Plaintiff to amend. See Doc. No. 95.

20
21
22

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Request for Reconsideration”
(Doc. No. 96) is DENIED.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2