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.)

Download PDF
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?