(PS) Bator v. Dixon ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BATOR, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 KAREN DIXON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Anthony Bator’s (“Plaintiff”) 18 “Motion/Request for Court to Correct Errors in Conclusions in Order Dated January 30, 19 2020/Motion to Reconsider/Judicial Notice” (ECF No. 27), which this Court construes as a 20 motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action. This is Plaintiff’s second motion of this 21 kind. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff initiated this action on January 3, 2019, against Defendants Judge Karen Dixon 3 and Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopez, asserting no specific causes of action but alleging that 4 Defendant Dixon made improper rulings against Plaintiff in a state court action. (ECF No. 1.) 5 No factual allegations were asserted against Defendant Lopez. (Id.) The action was ultimately 6 dismissed on September 30, 2019, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 21.) 7 On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 25.) 8 The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on January 31, 2020, on the basis that Plaintiff failed to 9 identify any new evidence, intervening change in the controlling law, or any errors of law or fact 10 in the judgment to warrant the extraordinary relief of reconsideration. (ECF No. 26.) On March 11 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 27.) The Court 12 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated herein. 13 II. STANDARDS OF LAW 14 The Court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60. 15 See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A motion to alter or amend a 16 judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of 17 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a motion 18 to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of 19 judgment; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order. 20 Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. 21 Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 Rule 59(e) does not list specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter, therefore the 23 district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 24 Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011), citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 25 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “should not be 26 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 27 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 28 law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Further, “[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to 1 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 2 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. 3 (Marlyn), 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). 4 “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 5 (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment 6 rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 7 evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 8 justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. 9 Under Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve Plaintiff from final judgment for any of the 10 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 11 evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 12 new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 13 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 14 has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been 15 reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason 16 that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 17 A motion based on Rule 60(b) must be made “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 60(c)(1). With respect to subsections (1), (2), and (3), the motion must be filed “no more than a 19 year after the entry of judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b)(6) goes 20 further, empowering the court to reopen a judgment even after one year has passed. Pioneer Inv. 21 Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). However, subsections (1) 22 through (3) are mutually exclusive of subsection (6), and thus a party who failed to take timely 23 action due to “excusable neglect” may not seek relief more than a year after the judgment by 24 resorting to subsection (6). Id. (citing Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 25 847, 863, and n. 11 (1988)). 26 Furthermore, relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is to be granted “sparingly as an equitable 27 remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). To 28 justify such relief, a litigant must demonstrate “‘extraordinary circumstances’ suggesting that the 1 party is faultless in the delay.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 393; see also Keeling v. Sheet 2 Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United 3 States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1129 (9th Cir.1982)). 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 Plaintiff does not identify any legal authority in support of his motion, nor does he specify 6 the relief he seeks. Based on the title of Plaintiff’s motion, he appears to seek reconsideration of 7 the Court’s January 31, 2020 Order (ECF No. 26), which denies Plaintiff’s prior Motion for 8 Reconsideration (ECF No. 25). Nevertheless, the body of Plaintiff’s motion appears to address 9 every prior order issued in this action.1 (See, generally, ECF No. 27.) Regardless, applying the 10 standard for reconsideration set forth under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 11 60(b), Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 12 Plaintiff asserts every ruling made against him during the course of this litigation was 13 made in error because the Court has chosen to promote form over substance. (See, e.g., ECF No. 14 27 at 1–2.) This appears to be an argument that the Court improperly dismissed Plaintiff’s action 15 due to superficial pleading deficiencies and/or applied the incorrect law. Plaintiff is mistaken. 16 Plaintiff’s action was dismissed because, as a matter of law, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 and 17 doctrine of judicial immunity divest this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. (See ECF 18 19 1 Plaintiff’s motion, though electronically filed on March 4, 2020, is dated February 9, 2020, and the proof of service is dated February 8, 2020. Applying the “prison mailbox rule” to 20 either February date, Plaintiff’s motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the Court’s January 31, 2020 Order (ECF No. 26) and is therefore construed as a motion to alter or amend the 21 judgment under Rule 59(e). See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2009) (a 22 pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed at the time he delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk); see also Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 23 2003) (date petition is signed may be considered earliest possible date an inmate could submit his petition to prison authorities for filing under the mailbox rule). However, to the extent Plaintiff 24 seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 30, 2019 Order dismissing this action (ECF No. 22), or any order issued prior to that date, Rule 60(b) applies. 25 26 2 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars jurisdiction in federal district court if the exact claims raised in a state court case are raised in the subsequent federal case, or if the constitutional claims 27 presented to the district court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s denial of relief. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2003), quoting D.C. Court of Appeals v. 28 Feldman, 460 U.S. 562, 483 n. 16 (1983). 1 No. 21 at 4–5.) Moreover, the action was dismissed with prejudice because any proposed 2 amendments were futile. (See ECF No. 21 at 6); see also Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 3 (1987) (holding that, while the court would normally grant a pro se plaintiff a chance to amend 4 his complaint, it will not grant leave to amend where it is clear that no amendment can cure the 5 complaint’s defects). Plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 25) was denied on the 6 aforementioned substantive bases, as well as the fact that Plaintiff was responsible for his own 7 failure to timely object to the Findings and Recommendations which recommended dismissal 8 (ECF No. 21). (See ECF No. 26 at 3–4); E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(f) (a plaintiff is under a continuing 9 obligation to inform the Court of any change of address); see also United States v. Merrill, 746 10 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1165 (1985) (pro se litigants are bound by 11 the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor). 12 Plaintiff’s instant motion provides no basis — legal or otherwise — compelling a different 13 result. Plaintiff yet again fails to identify any newly discovered evidence, intervening change in 14 the controlling law, or errors of law or fact in the judgment. While Plaintiff argues the 15 application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and doctrine of judicial immunity was inappropriate 16 (ECF No. 27 at 3), he identifies no legal authority to support this contention. Nor does he provide 17 argument or authority to support an alternative legal analysis of his claims. In sum, Plaintiff does 18 not demonstrate any “extraordinary circumstances’ warranting the relief he seeks. McDowell, 19 197 F.3d at 1255; Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff is simply re- 20 litigating issues he previously asserted, or could have asserted earlier in the litigation, such 21 arguments cannot form the basis for a motion for reconsideration. See Marlyn, 571 F.3d at 880. 22 Therefore, under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), Plaintiff fails to establish reconsideration is 23 warranted. Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 Motion for Reconsideration must be DENIED. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 27) is 3 DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: June 15, 2020 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28