Brown v. Jewell et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/3/2018 DENYING 39 Motion for Reconsideration. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARILEE BROWN, Pro Se,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:16-cv-00637-MCE-CKD-PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SALLY JEWELL, as Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Interior; THE
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff Marilee Brown, proceeding in pro se (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on

20

grounds that she was subject to retaliation arising out of her employment and

21

subsequent removal as a criminal investigator for the United States Fish and Wildlife

22

Service (“USFWS”). She sues both Sally Jewell, as Secretary of the Department of the

23

Interior, and the USFWS (collectively referred to as “the Federal Defendants”).

24

The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of

25

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on grounds that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claim for

26

retaliation. By Findings and Recommendations filed on February 28, 2017 (ECF No.

27

33), the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that the Federal Defendants’ Motion

28

be granted. Thereafter, on March 23, 2017, the undersigned adopted those findings and
1

1
2
3
4

recommendations and dismissed Plaintiff’s case without leave to amend. (ECF No. 36)
On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration purporting to
include further supporting arguments (ECF No. 39).
Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must

5

show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which

6

did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff’s instant

7

request fails to meet that standard. Despite claiming otherwise, Plaintiff provides no new

8

or different facts or circumstances indicating that reconsideration is appropriate. Nor

9

does Plaintiff do more than rehash the same legal issues that have already been

10

decided against him. Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is accordingly

11

DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2018

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2