Keeler v. Sheldon

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/28/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 16 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. These cases were properly consolidated, and case number 2:16-cv-2094-TLN-CMK is properly designated as the lead case. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIMBERLY J. KEELER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2094-TLN-CMK

ORDER

vs.
TREVER KNYPER,
Defendant.

16
17

KIMBERLY J. KEELER,
Plaintiff,

18
vs.

19
20

No. 2:16-cv-2186-JAM-CMK

WALTER BULLINGTON,
Defendant.

21
22

KIMBERLY J. KEELER,

23

Plaintiff,

24
25
26

No. 2:16-cv-2206-MCE-CMK

vs.
JOHNATHAN SHELDON,
Defendant.

27
28

///
1

1

KIMBERLY J. KEELER,

2
3
4

No. 2:16-cv-2508-TLN-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.
GARRET MAXWELL,
Defendant.

5
6
KIMBERLY J. KEELER,

No. 2:16-cv-2805-MCE-CMK

7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
10

CITY OF REDDING, et al.,
Defendant.

11
12

KIMBERLY J. KEELER,
No. 2:16-cv-2810-JAM-CMK

13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN S. CARLTON,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brought these six separate civil actions. On June 14,

19

2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered the cases consolidated into one case, and dismissed the

20

complaint, giving Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Pending before the Court is

21

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that order. (ECF No. 8.)

22

The Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, Rule 59(e) applies to a motion for reconsideration of a final

24

judgment. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing

25

reconsideration of summary judgment); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59

26

(9th Cir. 1995). Under Rule 60(a), the Court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and

27

any order based on clerical mistakes. Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration of a

28

final judgment and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
2

1

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not

2

have been discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or

3

misconduct of an opposing party.

4

The motion before the Court is not a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment, nor is

5

there any clerical mistakes Plaintiff is asking to have corrected. This motion, therefore, falls

6

under Rule 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and

7

any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

8

(2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered

9

within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

10

opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a

11

reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged.

12

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

13

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge order because she does not agree

14

with the order. She also seeks to have the proceedings held in the Sacramento Division of the

15

Eastern District.

16

Plaintiff does not cite any basis on which to grant her motion. She does not allege any

17

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Rather, she simply disagrees with the

18

Magistrate Judge’s decision. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s decision and finds

19

no error. As each of the separate actions involves common questions of law and fact,

20

consolidation into a single action is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
As to Plaintiff’s request to have these proceedings heard in the Sacramento Division,

21
22

Plaintiff is informed that this case is assigned to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District.

23

The assignment of this action to the Magistrate Judge sitting in Redding was done in accordance

24

with the Local Rules, Appendix A. Plaintiff provides no cause for reassignment. Her contention

25

that Shasta County is corrupt has no bearing on the assignment of this case to a judge of this

26

Court.

27

///

28

///
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

2

DENIED. These cases were properly consolidated, and case number 2:16-cv-2094-TLN-CMK is

3

properly designated as the lead case.

4
5

Dated: August 28, 2018

6
7
8
9

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4