Dunn v. Harris

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration; denying re 26 Request for Declaratory Judgment filed by Michael Dunn (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 Northern District of California 7 8 MICHAEL DUNN, 9 No. C 11-3343 MEJ Plaintiff, v. 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT KAMALA HARRIS, (Docket Nos. 25, 26) 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 13 14 Plaintiff Michael Dunn, a convicted felon, brought this action against Defendant Kamala 15 Harris, in her role as Attorney General of California, alleging that pursuant to California Penal Code 16 section 12021.3.1, the California Department of Justice refused to return guns Plaintiff alleges to 17 own. On October 25, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 25. In its Order, the Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 19 922(g)(1) prohibits the possession of firearms by any person convicted of a felony, and that the 20 Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), has concluded that 21 “felons are categorically different from the individuals who have a fundamental right to bear arms.” 22 Order at 4-5. 23 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Declaratory 24 Judgment, filed November 1, 2011. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26. To seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling, 25 Plaintiff should have filed a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local 26 Rule 7–9. Plaintiff neither sought nor obtained leave to file his motion for reconsideration, and it 27 should therefore be denied on that ground. However, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s 28 motion on the merits, it would fail. To be successful, a party moving for leave file a motion for 1 reconsideration must establish at least one of the three bases identified in Local Rule 7–9(b): (1) a 2 material difference in fact or law from that which was presented originally, (2) the emergence of 3 new material facts or a change of law since the order was issued, or (3) the existence of material 4 facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented but not considered by the court. Civ. L.R. 5 7–9(b). Here, Plaintiff’s motion is simply not cognizable as a motion for reconsideration because he 6 has not identified any basis under Rule 7-9(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 7 As to Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment, all claims have been dismissed in 8 Defendant’s favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment is DENIED AS 9 MOOT. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Dated: November 3, 2011 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 MICHAEL DUNN, Case Number: CV11-03343 MEJ 4 Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 KAMALA HARRIS et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 3, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 15 16 17 Michael Dunn P.O. Box 1468 Laytonville, CA 95454 Dated: November 3, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?