Kaighn et al v. United States of America

Filing 52

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/19/2016 ORDERING Plaintiffs' 47 Request for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JANIS KAIGHN and GREGORY
KAIGHN,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-02117-KJM-CKD

ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs Janis Kaighn and Gregory Kaighn ask this court to reconsider its

20

decision dismissing the case with prejudice. Req. Reconsider, ECF No. 47. In its prior order, the

21

court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim

22

upon which relief can be granted. See Order, ECF No. 45.

23

The Local Rules include detailed requirements for applications for reconsideration.

24

Local Rule 230(j). An applicant must submit a brief or affidavit setting forth the material facts

25

and circumstances surrounding each motion. Id. Specifically, the brief or affidavit must establish

26

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

27

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or

28

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” Local Rule 230(j)(3)–(4).
1

1

Here, plaintiffs filed a request for reconsideration that contains a four-page request

2

and over 450 pages of attachments and exhibits. See generally Req. Reconsider. The

3

attachments and exhibits consist largely of court documents from other cases and have no

4

apparent relation to this case. See, e.g., id. Exs. 1– 9. The court does not consider these unrelated

5

documents in deciding plaintiffs’ motion here.

6

Plaintiffs’ four-page request is difficult to decipher at best, as was plaintiffs’

7

complaint discussed and dismissed in the court’s prior order. The request includes reference to

8

conspiracies on the part of this and other courts, allegedly disbarred lawyers in Arizona, and the

9

“Rothschild Banking Dynasty.” Id. at 1–4. The court finds only two assertions that could

10

possibly be construed as grounds for reconsideration under Local Rule 230(j). The first assertion

11

is that the court “may have a misunderstanding of the true facts that are occuring [sic] and have

12

occurred in the State of Arizona,” apparently referring to a case before Judge Wake of the

13

Arizona District Court. Id. at 1–2. However, the court’s order dismissing the complaint did not

14

discuss Judge Wake or, for that matter, any case or action in Arizona. Thus, plaintiffs’ first

15

assertion is unrelated to their case here and provides no basis for reconsideration. The second

16

assertion is that plaintiffs have legal standing in this case. Id. at 3–4. However, as discussed

17

above, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim on jurisdictional grounds unrelated to standing. Thus,

18

this assertion does not support the court’s reconsideration of its decision here.

19
20

In sum, plaintiffs have not established any grounds for reconsideration of the
court’s order. Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

21

This resolves ECF No. 47.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: November 19, 2016.

24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2