Creamer v. Sherer et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRUCE WARREN CREAMER,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUSIE SHERER, et al.,
(Doc. No. 14)
Plaintiff Bruce Warren Creamer, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the
instant action on February 26, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate
judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without
prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No.
10.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any
objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) On June 14,
2021, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 11.) On June 30, 2021, the court adopted the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice,
entered judgment, and closed this case. On July 12, 2021, plaintiff filed another document
entitled “objections to findings and recommendations.” (Doc. No. 14.) Because judgment
already has been entered, but was entered fewer than 28 days ago, the court will construe the
document as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Case 1:20-cv-00293-DAD-BAM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted . . . unless the
district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
intervening change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F. 3d 656, 665
(9th Cir. 1999). Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly
in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882
F.2d 364 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he orderly administration of lengthy and complex litigation
such as this requires the finality of orders be reasonably certain.”). Further, motions for
reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when
they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890
(emphasis in original); accord Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571
F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s recent submission fails to present newly discovered evidence, any basis for a
finding of clear error, or any indication that there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law. Plaintiff mentions that the undersigned should have “excused” himself from this
case purportedly due to a “conflict of interest” but fails to articulate any legal or factual grounds
for recusal, let alone for recusal after judgment has been entered. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?