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)

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