Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 130

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 120 Motion for the Court to remove the federal police with there guns from the courtroom ; denying 121 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 127 Motion for the Court to deny defendant the United States notice to depose him (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

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
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

v.
9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, 127

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson, who is litigating this action pro se, has asked the Court for

14
15

various relief in several motions. See Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, and 127. These motions are appropriate

16

for disposition without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

17

I.

Motion Requesting To Have Security Personnel Removed From the Courtroom

18

Mr. Johnson asks that the Court remove the “federal police with there [sic] guns from the

19

courtroom” as “there presents [sic] shows a prejudgment on the part of the Court.” Dkt. No. 120

20

at 2. The request is frivolous and is denied. U.S. Marshal and Courtroom Security Officer

21

personnel are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of federal courtrooms and

22

courthouses. Their presence is routine. Mr. Johnson has not proffered any facts or identified any

23

reason that even remotely supports his request. This is not an invitation for additional briefing on

24

this issue, and the Court instructs Mr. Johnson not to submit any more motions, requests for

25

reconsideration or any other briefing on this issue.

26
27
28

II.

Motion Regarding Reconsideration
Mr. Johnson seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated June 12, 2014, (Dkt. No.

118), under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a). Dkt. No. 121. That order denied Mr.

1

Johnson’s prior request for reconsideration. See Dkt. No. 118. Reconsideration is denied. Id.
To obtain reconsideration, the moving party must show: (1) “a material difference in fact

2
3

or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
Mr. Johnson does not satisfy any of these threshold showings. He does not point to a

8
9

subsequent change in fact or law, or a failure by the Court to consider facts or arguments
previously presented. While Mr. Johnson disagrees with the Court’s ruling on the United States

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and the City and County of San Francisco’s motions to dismiss, a motion for reconsideration may

12

not be brought “merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment . . . or because he disagrees

13

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

14

(S.D. Nov. 18, 2011). The Court directs Mr. Johnson not to file any further briefs or submissions

15

on this issue.

16

III.

Motion To Deny Deposition

17

Mr. Johnson asks that the Court “deny” defendant the United States’ notice to depose him.

18

Dkt. No. 127. The request is denied. The Court reminds Mr. Johnson that his filings must comply

19

with this Court’s standing orders. The Court’s Standing Order for Discovery In Civil Cases

20

provides that all discovery disputes -- which includes any disputes about depositions -- must be

21

raised with the Court in a letter no longer than three pages, which may be filed only after the

22

parties have met and conferred in person. Mr. Johnson must comply with the Court’s standing

23

orders while appearing pro se.

24

The United States is entitled under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to take Mr.

25

Johnson’s deposition, so the motion is denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Under Civil Local

26

Rule 30-1, the United States must “confer about the scheduling of the deposition with opposing

27

counsel or, if the party is pro se, the party.” The Court’s Standing Order imposes the same

28
2

1

obligation. The Court expects the United States to confer with Mr. Johnson to determine a date

2

for his deposition that comports with his recovery from surgery.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
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
3

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 8/4/2014, 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
18

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

19
20

Dated: 8/4/2014

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
4