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)

Download PDF
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 (866) 638-7829. 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?