Robben v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/24/19 DENYING 17 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TODD CHRISTIAN ROBBEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-3023 KJM AC P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
By order filed October 31, 2018, this action was dismissed (ECF No. 15) and judgment

17
18

was entered on November 5, 2018 (ECF No. 16). On November 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion

19

for reconsideration.1 ECF Nos. 51, 52.
A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under

20
21

either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry,

22

950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)).

23

The motion “is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 59(e) if it is filed [within the time provided by that Rule]. Otherwise, it is treated as a

25

Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N.

26

Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Because plaintiff’s

27
28

1

Because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison
mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
1

1

motion for reconsideration was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the court

2

considers the motion under Rule 59(e).

3

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

4

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

5

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St.

6

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, Local Rule

7

230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or

8

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

9

or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not

10
11

shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argues that in dismissing his case, the court relied in

12

part on grounds not set forth in the findings and recommendations, thereby denying him the

13

opportunity to object to those grounds. ECF No. 17. Specifically, he asserts the court was

14

incorrect that he was trying to challenge the length of his sentence through an action under 42

15

U.S.C. § 1983, and that what he was seeking was an order requiring the California Supreme Court

16

and Third District Court of Appeal to file his documents in various cases. Id.

17

Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the complaint requests that the court “vacate various

18

orders/decisions/judgments to be determined,” not that the state courts be ordered to accept his

19

filings. ECF No. 1 at 6. However, even if the court misunderstood plaintiff’s request for relief,

20

and what he is seeking is in fact an order directing the state courts to file his documents, dismissal

21

was still proper as this court does not have authority to grant the relief plaintiff seeks. “The

22

federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial

23

officers in the performance of their duties.” Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th

24

Cir. 1966) (citations omitted); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. Wash., 925 F.2d 1160,

25

1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the “court lack[ed] jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to

26

a state court” where plaintiff sought an order compelling state court to accept his filings).

27

Petitions that seek “to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from

28

some action . . . are frivolous as a matter of law.” Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161-62.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

2

No. 17) is denied and, upon reconsideration, the order dismissing the complaint without leave to

3

amend is affirmed.

4

DATED: January 24, 2019.

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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