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
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?