(UD)(PS) Hartono v. Lewis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Agus Hartono, No. 2:22-cev-01151-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Yolanda Lewis, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Pro se defendant Yolanda Lewis moves this court to reconsider its order remanding this 18 | unlawful detainer action to state court and to stay this case pending appeal. See Mot. Recons., 19 | ECF No. 6; Mot. Stay, ECF No. 8. Ms. Lewis moved for reconsideration the day after this court 20 | issued its order, so Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) applies. See Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A 21 | motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the 22 | judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 23 | unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 24 | there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 25 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Ms. Lewis does not present this court with new evidence or 26 | point to an intervening change in controlling law. She does aver the court committed error “based 27 | on” Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., New York, 414 U.S. 661 (1974). See 28 | Mot. Recons. at 1. 1 In Oneida Indian Nation, the Oneida Indian Nation sought to eject the state of New York 2 | from lands it claimed to have owned “from time immemorial.” 414 U.S. at 664. It alleged that 3 | cessations of land to New York during the eighteenth century were invalid, in part, because the 4 | United States had not consented as required by federal law. /d. at 664-65. The Supreme Court’s 5 | core holding was that the Nation’s claim arose under federal law. /d. at 682. Ms. Lewis does not 6 | explain the relevance of Oneida Indian Nation to this dispute, and the court is aware of no factual 7 | or legal similarities warranting further exploration. 8 The court denies Ms. Lewis’ motion for reconsideration. Ms. Lewis’ motion to stay, ECF 9 | No. 8, is moot. 10 This order resolves ECF Nos. 6 & 8. 11 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 12 | DATED: August 30, 2022. 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45