Rosiere v. United States of America

Filing 84

ORDER that 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter/Amend the Clerk's Judgement is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/30/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SHAUN ROSIERE, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 7 Defendant. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-02286-GMN-PAL ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 70), and a Motion to 10 11 Amend Judgment, (ECF No. 71), filed by pro se Plaintiff Shaun Rosiere (“Plaintiff”). 12 Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 80, 81), and 13 Plaintiff filed Replies, (ECF Nos. 82, 83). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion 14 to Reconsider and Motion to Amend Judgement is DENIED. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 This case concerns Plaintiff’s claims brought under the Freedom of Information Act 17 (“FOIA”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s FOIA requests were made in regard to two 18 criminal cases against him in the District of New Jersey, a civil forfeiture case in the District of 19 Colorado, and Plaintiff’s incarceration in Colorado. (Id.). Over the span of approximately 20 fourteen months, Plaintiff has filed nine cases involving these FOIA requests in seven federal 21 districts. Based on these duplicative filings, the Court found that the Complaint filed in this 22 case was frivolous and malicious. Accordingly, on May 9, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s 23 Complaint dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff now seeks to have the Court 24 reconsider the Order dismissing the Complaint, and alter or amend the Clerk’s Judgement. 25 (ECF Nos. 68, 69). Page 1 of 3 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 4 Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered 5 evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 6 if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. 7 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not 8 a mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 9 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been 10 presented earlier, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994) 11 (footnotes omitted). Thus, Rule 59(e) and 60(b) and are not “intended to give an unhappy 12 litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889 13 (E.D. Va. 1977). 14 III. 15 DISCUSSION In the instant motions, Plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its dismissal of 16 Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff is not seeking to present any newly discovered evidence or 17 argue an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he [C]ourt 18 errored [sic] in establishing a limit by an individual on [FOIA] requests; thus, causing disparity 19 between Open Government Act of 2007, Sec. 2” and findings by Congress. (Mot. to Reconsider 20 at 8, ECF No. 70). 21 Defendant argues that Plaintiff “fails to demonstrate the existence of clear error or any 22 other criteria that would warrant reconsideration.” (Resp. 2:20–21). The Court agrees. A 23 motion for reconsideration should not be “used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already 24 thought.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 25 2003); see also Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (denial of a motion Page 2 of 3 1 for reconsideration is proper when Plaintiff “present[s] no arguments that [have] not already 2 been raised.”). 3 Plaintiff fails to address the grounds in the Court’s Order to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 4 Complaint with prejudice. In effect, Plaintiff is rearguing issues already presented and does not 5 provide any unusual circumstances that would justify granting the Motion to Reconsider. The 6 Court finds neither clear error nor manifest injustice in the reasoning of its pervious Order, and 7 therefore, the criteria for reconsideration have not been met. 8 IV. 9 10 11 12 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 70), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter/Amend the Clerk’s Judgement, (ECF No. 71), is DENIED. 13 14 30 DATED this _____ day of August, 2017. 15 16 17 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?