Flores v. Trump

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 03/02/2017. (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to re ceive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
XAVIER FLORES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DONALD TRUMP,
)
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 16-00652 LEK-RLP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 12, 2017, this Court issued its Order
Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice; Reserving
Ruling on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs; and Reserving Ruling on All
Other Pending Motions (“1/12/17 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 8.]

Because

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, on February 17,
2017, this Court issued its Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice
(“2/17/17 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 9.]

On March 1, 2017, pro se

Plaintiff Xavier Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed his Motion for
Reconsideration.

[Dkt. no. 10.]

The Court has considered the

Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter pursuant to
Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
After careful consideration of the motion and the relevant legal
authority, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND
In the 1/12/17 Order, this Court noted that Plaintiff’s
Complaint, filed December 9, 2016, appeared to be a letter to
Defendant Donald Trump (“President Trump”) expressing his
disagreement with positions that President Trump took during his
presidential campaign.

Because this Court could not determine

what claims Plaintiff was attempting to assert against President
Trump, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, with leave to
file an amended complaint by February 13, 2017.
at 3-4.]

[1/12/17 Order

This Court warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to file

an amended complaint by that date, this Court would dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and the case would be closed.
[Id. at 5.]
This Court issued the 2/17/17 Order after Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint.

The 2/17/17 Order directed

the Clerk’s Office to close the case unless Plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration of the 2/17/17 Order by March 6, 2017.
[2/17/17 Order at 3.]
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this Court must
liberally construe his filings.

See, e.g., Pregana v.

CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671,
at *2 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2015) (“The Court liberally construes
the [plaintiffs’] filings because they are proceeding pro se.”
(citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987))).

2

This Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration as asking this Court to reconsider the 2/17/17
Order by giving him more time to file an amended complaint that
complies with the 1/12/17 Order.
DISCUSSION
This Court has previously stated that a motion for
reconsideration
“must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for
reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the
court should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, a motion for reconsideration must set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No.
11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D.
Hawaii June 2, 2014) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). This district court
recognizes three circumstances where it is proper
to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when
there has been an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to
light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Tierney v.
Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL 1858585,
at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School
District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a
previous order is an insufficient basis for
reconsideration.” Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3
n.4 (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Riley v. Nat’l Ass’n of Marine Surveyors, Inc., Civil No. 1400135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 25,
2014).
Like his Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration merely expresses his disagreement with President
3

Trump’s positions regarding the business community and the
manufacturing industry.

The Motion for Reconsideration states

that Plaintiff would like to address these issues with President
Trump through this action.

Plaintiff apparently relies upon

statements that President Trump has made since taking office.
Although those statements are new evidence which Plaintiff did
not have when he wrote the Complaint, the main point of the
1/12/17 Order was that this Court could not determine what claims
Plaintiff was attempting to assert against President Trump.

This

Court cannot discern from the Motion for Reconsideration what
claims Plaintiff would assert if this Court gave him more time to
file an amended complaint.

Thus, this Court CONCLUDES that the

new evidence of President Trump’s recent statements does not
warrant reconsideration of the 2/17/17 Order.
This Court also CONCLUDES that the Motion for
Reconsideration does not establish that: there has been a change
in the controlling law since the filing of the 2/17/17 Order; or
reconsideration of the 2/17/17 Order is necessary to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

This Court therefore

CONCLUDES that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not
establish any grounds that warrant reconsideration of the 2/17/17
Order.
This Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has many
concerns about President Trump’s policies and positions on

4

certain topics.

However, filing a lawsuit against an elected

official is not the proper forum in which Plaintiff can exercise
his right as a citizen to express such concerns.

Plaintiff may

wish to consider other avenues, such as writing a letter to
President Trump or to the United States Senator or Representative
for Plaintiff’s district.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed March 1, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.

There

being no remaining claims in this case, this Court DIRECTS the
Clerk’s Office to close the case immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 2, 2017.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

XAVIER FLORES VS. DONALD TRUMP; CIVIL 16-00652 LEK-RLP; ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

5