Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING 116 MOTION for Reconsideration re 114 Order on Motion to Reassign Case filed by James Ellis Johnson. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/11/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 116

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Motion

14

Request for Reconsideration of the Court Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassign the Case to

15

Judge Chen. Dkt. No. 116. Plaintiff’s motion requests the Court, pursuant to California Code of

16

Civil Procedure § 1008(a), to reconsider its May 28, 2014 order, (Dkt. No. 114), which denied

17

Plaintiff’s request to have this case returned to Judge Chen after it was randomly reassigned to this

18

Court under General Order 44.

19

Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires parties to seek permission from the court prior to filing a

20

motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In a motion for leave to file a motion for

21

reconsideration, the moving party must show: (1) “a material difference in fact or law exists from

22

that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

23

reconsideration is sought;” (2) “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law

24

occurring after the time of such order;” or (3) “manifest failure by the Court to consider material

25

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory

26

order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

27
28

Even when leave to file is granted, motions for reconsideration serve a “very limited
purpose” and are appropriate “only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

1

discovered evidence.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd., 850

2

F.Supp. 839, 845 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration may not be

3

brought “merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment . . . or because he disagrees with

4

the ultimate decision.” Bridgeman v. Peralta, No. 11-2132 WQH, 2011 WL 5830427, at *1 (S.D.

5

Nov. 18, 2011).

6

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not asked this Court for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration. Even though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to follow the Local

8

Rules of this District. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(a) (“A person representing him or herself without an

9

attorney is bound by the Federal Rules, as well as by all applicable local rules.”). For this reason

10

alone, the motion may be denied as procedurally improper. See Doherty v. City of Alameda, No.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

09-4961-EDL, 2010 WL 1526135, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2010).

12

Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s motion as one for leave to file a motion for

13

reconsideration, it does not meet the showing required by Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff does not point

14

to a subsequent change in fact or law, or a failure by the Court to consider facts or arguments

15

previously presented. Instead, Plaintiff’s motion repeats arguments made in his initial motion and

16

raises a number of new issues that have no bearing on the legal question examined in the Court’s

17

order, (Dkt. No. 114), including a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s medical records, and

18

Plaintiff’s objections to certain aspects of the May 28, 2014 hearing on Defendants’ motions to

19

dismiss.

20

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: June 11, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

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 6/11/2014, 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.

16
17

James Ellis Johnson
1819 Golden Gate Avenue, #12
San Francisco, CA 94115

18
19
20

Dated: 6/11/2014

21
22

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

23
24
25
26

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

27
28
3