Bravo v. CDCR Director, M. Cates

Filing 73

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 71 Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VICTOR J. BRAVO, Case No. 12-cv-06414-JSC Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Re: Dkt. No. 71 Defendant. 12 13 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 14 Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 68.) Plaintiff styles his 15 motion as a motion to amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which 16 governs motions to amend or alter judgment after a non-jury trial. Given that no trial was held in 17 this action and that Plaintiff seeks to vacate the order dismissing the action, the Court construes his 18 motion as a request for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 19 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 20 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 21 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. 22 Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise 23 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 24 earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order on the basis that the undersigned is “aiding 26 and abetting” Defendant by ignoring legal authority in Plaintiff’s favor. (Dkt. No. 71 at 2.) 27 Contrary to Plaintiff’s bald assertions, the Court closely examined Plaintiff’s multiple complaints 28 and the discernible legal arguments presented by both sides. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with 1 the Court’s ultimate conclusion does not provide a basis for his motion for reconsideration. 2 Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly DENIED. 3 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 16, 2014 ______________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?