Creamer v. Sherer et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/2021. (Marrujo, C)

Case 1:20-cv-00293-DAD-BAM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE WARREN CREAMER,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:20-cv-00293-NONE-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

SUSIE SHERER, et al.,
(Doc. No. 14)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Bruce Warren Creamer, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the

18

instant action on February 26, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate

19

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without

20

prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No.

21

10.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any

22

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) On June 14,

23

2021, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 11.) On June 30, 2021, the court adopted the

24

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice,

25

entered judgment, and closed this case. On July 12, 2021, plaintiff filed another document

26

entitled “objections to findings and recommendations.” (Doc. No. 14.) Because judgment

27

already has been entered, but was entered fewer than 28 days ago, the court will construe the

28

document as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00293-DAD-BAM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2
1

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted . . . unless the

2

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

3

intervening change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F. 3d 656, 665

4

(9th Cir. 1999). Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly

5

in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

6

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882

7

F.2d 364 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he orderly administration of lengthy and complex litigation

8

such as this requires the finality of orders be reasonably certain.”). Further, motions for

9

reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when

10

they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890

11

(emphasis in original); accord Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

12

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

13

Plaintiff’s recent submission fails to present newly discovered evidence, any basis for a

14

finding of clear error, or any indication that there has been an intervening change in the

15

controlling law. Plaintiff mentions that the undersigned should have “excused” himself from this

16

case purportedly due to a “conflict of interest” but fails to articulate any legal or factual grounds

17

for recusal, let alone for recusal after judgment has been entered. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion

18

for reconsideration is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

July 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2