Willis v. Willis

Filing 13

ORDER REGARDING 12 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE TO THE COURT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/31/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

LILLIYA WILLIS,

Case No. 16-cv-05957-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
NOTICE TO THE COURT

9
10

ANDRE WILLIS,

[Re: ECF 12]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff Lilliya Willis, proceeding pro se, filed a “notice to the

14

court,” in which Willis states, “The order for i a woman, signed by [Judge] Beth Labson Freeman

15

on the date of December 13, 2016 required explanation.” Notice, ECF 12. The Court construes

16

Willis’ Notice as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Erickson v. Pardus, 551

17

U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

18

A motion “under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

19

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

20

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

21

1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration

22

‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

23

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

24

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

25

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000)).

26

The Court previously adopted Judge Lloyd’s report and recommendation and dismissed the

27

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In her Notice, Willis’ articulates the following basis

28

for amending this Court’s judgment:

1

My common law case is only for trial by jury and can not be
dismissed by any member of legal society; only men, women of my
peer have the capacity and power to rule my case. . . . My case is
my property; my case is to be remained sealed, not opened, not to be
examined, not to be given legal society opinion by any employee of
the public court house which has duties and obligations to the
public; i am public and i have rights. The wrong was/is done to me
and i have rights to bring the matter to the open court of record, trial
by jury under common law rules which is established and protected
for me by the seventh amendment and that is the most superior law
of this land.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Notice 1. Willis does not explain how these assertions satisfy the prerequisites under Rule 59(e).

8

Moreover, other than the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Willis provides no

9

authority for her assertions. Id. The Seventh Amendment, however, does not provide authority

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

for this Court to decide cases that do not fall within its jurisdiction.
In sum, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

12

Plaintiff has identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law to

13

justify overturning this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e).

14

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Willis’ motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ.

15

Proc. 59(e).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: January 31, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2