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)

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