Pedraza et al v. Alameda Unified School District et al

Filing 269

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/23/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

8
9

No. 05-04977 CW

LINDA PEDRAZA,

v.
ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al.,

11

Defendants.
/

12
13
14

Pro se Plaintiff Linda Pedraza has filed a document entitled,

15

“Plaintiff’s Statements of Objections to the Order of October 20,

16

2011 Pursuant to FRCP 46, FRCP 9(b), Jury Demand FRCP 38(a), Relief

17

from a Judgment FRCP 60(b), Motion to Strike Pleadings FRCP 12(f),

18

9 USCS § 3.”

19

leave to file a motion for reconsideration because, in it,

20

Plaintiff seeks to relitigate issues previously adjudicated in

21

Orders issued on October 20, 2011 and September 29, 2011.

22

considered all the papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court denies the

23

motion.

24

The Court construes this document as a motion for

Having

In the October 20, 2011 Order, the Court construed two

25

documents filed by Plaintiff to be motions for leave to file a

26

motion for reconsideration and denied them.

27

Pedraza argues that her previous filings were not motions for

28

reconsideration.

In this filing, Ms.

However, this argument is belied by the fact

1

that, in them, she attempted to relitigate previously adjudicated

2

issues.

3

In the present document, Plaintiff brings up the same issues

4

as she did in her previous filings.

5

for reconsideration of an interlocutory order as provided in Local

6

Civil Rule 7-9, which the Court cited in the October 10, 2011

7

Order.

8

been decided.

9

appeal the Court’s decisions after entry of judgment.

She does not meet the standard

Plaintiff may not attempt to re-litigate issues that have
If Plaintiff feels the Court ruled in error, she may
See

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341

11

(9th Cir. 1981) (motions for reconsideration are not substitute for

12

appeal or means of attacking perceived error of the court).

13
14

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 11/23/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2