Lauren v. Montana State University et al

Filing 95

ORDER ADOPTING 93 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full. Lauren's 85 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Clerk's Judgment entered 12/6/18.) Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 11/1/2019. (NOS) (Copy to Ninth Circuit.)(NOS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
CV-17-62-BU-BMM-JCL
JEAN PAUL LAUREN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
WADED CRUZADO, JOHN
PAXTON, and BRENDA YORK,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jean Paul Lauren requested that the Court reconsider its Order
(Doc. 82) adopting the findings and recommendations of United States Magistrate
Judge Jeremiah Lynch, (Doc. 73). Judge Lynch recommended that Montana State
University’s motions for failure to state a claim and for partial summary judgment
should be granted and that the matter should be dismissed. (Doc. 73). The Court
adopted Judge Lynch’s recommendations and dismissed the case. (Doc. 82).
Lauren filed a motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 85), and, shortly after, a
notice of his appeal to the Ninth Circuit, (Doc. 86). Judge Lynch denied Lauren’s
motion for reconsideration as moot. (Doc. 87). The Ninth Circuit remanded for
the limited purpose of allowing the Court to rule on the motion for reconsideration
on the merits. (Doc. 91).

The Ninth Circuit directed Lauren to file a written notice to the Ninth Circuit
within 14 days after the district court’s ruling on the pending motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 91). Lauren filed his notice of appeal after Judge Lynch
had entered findings and recommendations, but before this Court had ruled on his
motion.
Judge Lynch recommended that Lauren’s motion for reconsideration be
denied. (Doc. 93). Lauren attached Judge Lynch’s findings and recommendations
to his amended notice of appeal and requested a court-appointed attorney and extra
time. (Doc. 94). Lauren did not file objections to Judge Lynch’s findings and
recommendations. The Court construes Lauren’s notice of appeal as objections to
the findings and recommendations due to the Court’s duty to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. See Ortez v. Washington County Oregon, 88 F.3d 804, 807
(9th Cir. 1996).
The Court reviews de novo the portions of the findings and
recommendations to which Lauren objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court
reviews for clear error any portion to which no party specifically objected.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981).

Judge Lynch denied Lauren’s motion for reconsideration based on the
following reasoning: (1) Lauren failed to seek leave of the court prior to filing a
motion for reconsideration per Local Rule 7.3(a); (2) Local Rule 7.3(b) permits
only reconsideration of an interlocutory order, and Lauren sought review of a final
ruling; and (3) Lauren failed to otherwise satisfy the standard to permit a motion
for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.3(b)(1) & (2).
Local Rule 7.3(b)(1) and (2) present the standard for a motion for
reconsideration. A litigant must show that either (1) the facts or law are different
from the facts or law previously presented to the court, and despite the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the party did not know such facts or law; or (2) new facts
arose or the law changed after the entry of the order. L. R. 7.3(b)(1) & (2). Lauren
does not point to any previously unknown facts or changed law and therefore does
not meet the standard for a motion for reconsideration.
Judge Lynch accurately analyzed Lauren’s motion for reconsideration under
the Local Rules. If Lauren disagrees with this Court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration, he should file a notice pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s instructions
within 14 days. (See Doc. 91).
IT IS ORDERED:

1. Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 93), are
ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. Lauren’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 1st day of November, 2019.