Kalincheva v. Neubarth

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA,
8

No. C 13-03294-SI
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
JESSE NEUBARTH,
Defendant.
/

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On July 15, 2013, pro se plaintiff Magdalina Kalincheva filed this action to enforce the contract
created by the “Form I-864,” the affidavit of support signed by her immigration sponsor. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a). On August 12, 2013, the Court transferred plaintiff’s action from this District to the Eastern
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Docket No. 13. On September 9 and 10, 2013,
plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion to Transfer Back Case . . .” and a motion entitled “Ex Parte
Motion to Transfer and Reassign All 4 Dockets . . . .” Docket Nos. 15, 24. In the motions, plaintiff
argues that the Court improperly transferred her action to the Eastern District. Id. The Court construes
the two motions as motions for reconsideration of the Court’s prior transfer order.
A district court has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke a prior order. United States
v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). “Reconsideration [of a prior order] is appropriate if the
district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.
No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration should be used
conservatively, because it is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

1

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (“‘[A]

2

motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances . . . .’”).

3

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any newly discovered evidence or a change in

4

controlling law. In addition, the Court did not err in transferring plaintiff’s action to the Eastern District

5

of California. According to the civil cover sheet, both plaintiff and defendant reside in the Eastern

6

District, see Docket No. 1-1, and none of the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred

7

in the Northern District. See Compl. Therefore, the Court properly transferred the action to the Eastern

8

District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s

9

motions for reconsideration, Docket Nos. 15, 24.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In addition to the motions for reconsideration, plaintiff has also filed several other ex parte

11

motions: a “Motion for I-864 . . . ,” a “Motion for Car Umbrella . . . ,” a “Motion for Permanent

12

Restraining Order . . . ,” a “Motion for Waiver of Local and All Rules . . . ,” and a “Motion to Seal Our

13

Docket . . . .” Docket Nos. 16-19, 21. Because this case remains transferred to the Eastern District of

14

California, the Court denies these ex parte motions without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the motions

15

in the Eastern District of California.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: September 23, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2