Belton v. Hooko et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/31/2017 DENYING 22 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE BELTON III,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-01780-KJM-CKD

v.

ORDER

M. HOOKO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

On January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

19

requesting this court dismiss plaintiff Willie Belton III’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

20

ECF No. 17. After reviewing the record and plaintiff’s filed objections, ECF No. 19, this court

21

adopted the findings and recommendations, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, and

22

closed the case. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its order. ECF No. 22.

23

For reasons explained below, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

24

I.

25

LEGAL STANDARDS
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

26

of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

27

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). A district court may grant a motion

28

for reconsideration if it “‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or
1

1

if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

2

1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

3

(9th Cir. 1999)). A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for

4

the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Kona, 229

5

F.3d at 890.

6

II.

DISCUSSION

7

Here, plaintiff’s filing appears misdirected. Throughout his motion, plaintiff

8

discusses his inability to timely submit documents supporting his claim in a case he apparently

9

filed in the Central District of California, numbered 2:17-cv-533-PSG-E. See Mot. at 1–2, 18

10

(attaching Central District Docket to motion). In this context, plaintiff requests reconsideration

11

because he says he was not aware of certain findings and recommendations until 72 hours before

12

the time expired to object. ECF No. 22 at 1–2. But plaintiff timely filed objections to the

13

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in this case in this court. ECF No. 19. In those

14

objections, plaintiff did not say he was unaware of the findings and recommendations until 72

15

hours before the objection period expired. See id.

16

Even if the court considers the substance of plaintiff’s motion, nothing he provides

17

warrants reconsideration here. His documents specifically identify an excessive force claim

18

against defendant “Miranda,” who is a defendant in plaintiff’s Central District case, but not in this

19

case. See ECF No. 22 at 4. Second, plaintiff’s suit here is based on an alleged First Amendment

20

retaliation claim; as noted, plaintiff’s proffered documents discuss excessive force. See id.

21

Plaintiff’s proffered documents are irrelevant to his claim at issue here. See generally ECF No.

22

22.

23

Plaintiff’s motion does not present new evidence, contend this court committed

24

clear error, or show there was an intervening change in controlling law. McDowell, 197 F.3d at

25

1255. Plaintiff’s contentions do not warrant relief. His motion for reconsideration will therefore

26

be DENIED.

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

3

This Order resolves ECF No. 22.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: August 31, 2017.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3