Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 85

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 82 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICK MISSUD,

9

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-5468 EMC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 82)
13
14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

On February 15, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment in

17

this case. Docket No. 81. This Court had earlier dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for lack

18

of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk had entered judgment

19

pursuant to the order. Docket No. 70, 71.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The same day as this Court’s order denying the motion to alter judgment, Plaintiff filed
another motion to alter or amend judgment. Docket No. 82.
II.

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment may be granted. They are:
(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact
upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to
present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if
such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the
amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

1

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff offers arguments under all

2

four grounds, but all are unavailing.

3

A.

4

Necessary to Correct Manifest Errors of Law or Fact
Plaintiff argues that the first ground for granting a Rule 59(e) motion is present here, offering

5

various allegations about the Court’s supposed misdeeds in an unrelated case filed by Plaintiff

6

against D.R. Horton, Inc. Pl.’s Mot. at 2. These allegations have nothing to do with the instant case,

7

and do not provide grounds for altering or amending the judgment.

8

B.

Necessary to Present Newly Discovered Evidence

the case Plaintiff filed against D.R. Horton. In addition to being unrelated to the instant case, it does

11
For the Northern District of California

Again, Plaintiff offers allegations that this ground is met, but offers only argument relating to

10

United States District Court

9

not appear that any of the facts Plaintiff alleges in this section are newly discovered or previously

12

unavailable.

13

C.

14

Necessary to Prevent Manifest Injustice
Plaintiff argues that altering or amending the judgment is necessary to prevent manifest

15

injustice because this case was originally erroneously classified as a miscellaneous insurance claim

16

by the Clerk’s office. Pl.’s Mot. at 3. The case was re-classified less than ten days later. Docket

17

No. 6. Plaintiff offers no explanation for how he was prejudiced by this initial misclassification, or

18

how this misclassification affected the final disposition of this case.

19

D.

20

Change in Controlling Law
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to alter or amend the judgment in this case because “the

21

‘controlling law’ is as such: There is no ‘judicial immunity’ for your colleague$’ lie$ to protect

22

corporate predation of the people.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3-4. Whatever Plaintiff’s arguments about the

23

limits of judicial immunity, he points to no recent development in the law in this area, or in any area

24

of law relevant to this Court’s dismissal of the instant case.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to alter or amend this Court’s judgment

3

under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED.1

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 82.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 25, 2013

9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

Plaintiff also states that the PACER link to this Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s first Rule
59(e) is broken. As of the time this order was issued, there does not appear to be any problem with
the link. If Plaintiff has difficulties with PACER links in the future, he may wish to call the ECF
Help Desk at [phone].

3