Cowan v. Brown et al

Filing 99

ORDER Denying 98 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/13/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHAD COWAN,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

v.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG
Plaintiff,

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN,
JUDGE MAUREEN HALLAHAN,
COMMISSIONER PENNIE
MCLAUGHLIN, SDCSS LAWYER
NATASHA ESSES, SDCSS
LAWYER DIONNE MOCHON,
SDCSS CASE MANAGER MIA-LEE
CABRERA, TRAC PHAM, SAN
DIEGO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 98]

Defendants.
On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff Chad Cowan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed

21 an “Exparte Motion to Vacate Order and Judgments.” (ECF No. 98.) The Court
22 construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 25,
23 2015, order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, (ECF No. 95). Under Federal
24 Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, federal district courts may reconsider final orders
25 to correct “manifest errors of law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Sante Fe R.R., 338 F.3d
26 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, parties must show either: (1) an intervening
27 change in the law; (2) additional evidence that was not previously available; or (3) that
28 the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice. Marlyn
-1-

3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG

1 Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009);
2 Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Pyramid Lake
3 Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989).
4

However, Plaintiff has shown none of these. Instead Plaintiff has erroneously

5 referred to the Court’s June 25 order as a “proposed order,” (see, e.g., ECF No. 98, at
6 1, 4), and repeated the same incorrect arguments that this Court already rejected,
7 (compare ECF No. 98, at 3–9 with ECF No. 95, at 4–5). Specifically, Plaintiff argues
8 that he “was forced in to [sic] signing the ‘judgment’ fraud was committed to obtain
9 the signature of the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 98, at 10.) As the Court previously noted,
10 Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support fraud. (See ECF No. 95, at 5.)
11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 98).
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14 DATED: July 13, 2015
15
16

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG