McDaniel v. USA, et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/7/17, DENYING plaintiff's 14 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-02627-KJM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is before the court. On January 31, 2017, the

18

magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed, finding “[p]laintiff’s allegations are too

19

vague and conclusory to state a federal claim.” ECF No. 5 at 3. In light of “plaintiff’s history of

20

filing deficient complaints as to her generalized claim of harassment,” the magistrate judge

21

recommended dismissal without leave to amend. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff objected. ECF No. 6. On

22

June 16, 2017, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the case

23

without leave to amend, entered judgment, and ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court

24

should not declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and impose sanctions. ECF Nos. 12, 13.

25

On June 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a “response and declaration,” ECF No. 14, and a

26

notice of appeal, ECF No. 15. Viewing this filing, in part, as plaintiff’s response to the court’s

27

order to show cause, the court declared plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.” ECF No. 19 at 3 (filed

28

Aug. 30, 2017). The balance of plaintiff’s filing argued the court erred in dismissing this case.
1

1

See ECF No. 14 at 1-18. The Ninth Circuit, recognizing this portion of plaintiff’s filing as a

2

pending motion, held appellate proceedings in abeyance pending this court’s resolution of the

3

motion. ECF No. 18.

4

The court here construes the pending motion as a motion to reconsider the court’s

5

dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc.

6

v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (requests for reconsideration filed

7

within the time period identified in Rule 59(e) are construed as motions under that section).

8

Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight days of

9

the entry of the judgment. Although the Rule does not list specific grounds for such a motion, the

10

Ninth Circuit has said that a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if “(1) the district court is

11

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an

12

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling

13

law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The

14

court has “considerable discretion” when considering such a motion. Turner v. Burlington N.

15

Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The rule provides “an ‘extraordinary

16

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’”

17

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A

18

party moving for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the Court has already

19

thought through” simply because of a disagreement with the result of that thought process. Above

20

the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).

21

Here, plaintiff argues the court dismissed her action “without probable or just

22

cause.” ECF No. 14 at 2. Plaintiff’s motion largely duplicates her objections to the magistrate

23

judge’s findings and recommendations. Compare ECF No. 14 at 6-18, with ECF No. 6 at 2-14.

24

Plaintiff also describes abuses she has suffered and argues the court is attempting to deprive her

25

of her constitutional rights. ECF No. 14 at 2-5. Yet plaintiff identifies no newly discovered

26

evidence, intervening changes in the law, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration. The

27

court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

28

/////
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2017.

3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3