Wagner v. Shasta County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CINDY WAGNER, No. 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE MONELL 11 SHASTA COUNTY, et al., CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for 15 reconsideration. See Mot. for Reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF 16 No. 98. Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate Plaintiff’s Monell 17 claims and to reconsider its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to 18 amend her complaint. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in 19 Part Def.’s Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 25; see 20 also Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Amend, ECF No 35. Defendants 21 oppose Plaintiff’s motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 101. Plaintiff 22 replied. See Reply, ECF No. 102. For the reasons set forth 23 below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate claims 24 and motion for reconsideration.1 25 1 The Court declines to entertain Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated request that the Court refrain from ruling on this matter and 26 instead remand this case back to state court. Mot. at 10. 27 Further, this motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 1, 2023. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 In April of 2019, Plaintiff and her husband were arrested 3 and placed into custody at the Shasta County Jail for an alleged 4 verbal dispute. Compl. ¶ 10, Exh. A to Notice of Removal, ECF 5 No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to excessive 6 force during the booking process, when a deputy, while 7 handcuffing her, pulled her left hand behind her back, shoved her 8 face-first into a wall, threw her on the ground, and then got on 9 top of her. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges several other officers 10 got on top of her as well, although she weighed only 113 pounds 11 and was 5’5” tall. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. 12 As a result of this unnamed deputy’s actions, Plaintiff 13 sustained serious injuries, including a large contusion and 14 hematoma to her forehead, a broken C-3 vertebra in her neck, a 15 broken nose, a concussion, and lacerations to her face and lip. 16 Id. 22. Plaintiff was taken to the jail’s infirmary, where she 17 was treated for bleeding, and then escorted to a cell. Id. 18 ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff requested further medical aid. Id. ¶ 25. 19 She was transported to Mercy Medical Center’s Emergency 20 Department, treated, and returned to the jail where she spent the 21 night in custody. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. Plaintiff was released from 22 custody the following day. Id. ¶ 28. 23 24 II. OPINION 25 A. Motion to Reinstate Monell Claims 26 Plaintiff moves for an order reinstating her Monell claims, 27 which the Court previously dismissed without prejudice. Mot. at 28 5. In support of her motion, Plaintiff refers the Court to her 1 opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. 2 Id. There being no legal authority directing the Court to do so, 3 the Court declines to consider arguments not properly raised in 4 the moving papers. Plaintiff had ample space under the Court’s 5 page limit to properly brief this matter. 6 “Although plaintiffs style their motion as a motion to 7 reinstate their dismissed claims it is more appropriately treated 8 as a motion to file an amended complaint.” Cairns v. Franklin 9 Mint Co., 120 F. Supp. 2d 880, 881 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2000). A 10 party seeking amendment after the Court has filed a pretrial 11 scheduling order must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” requirement. Johnson v. Mammoth 13 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). This 14 “good cause” requirement looks to the “diligence of the party 15 seeking amendment” and “the existence of degree of prejudice to 16 the party opposing the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 17 If the moving party was not diligent, the Court’s inquiry ends. 18 Id. 19 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not been diligent in 20 pursuing amendment. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Monell 21 claims nearly two years ago on November 3, 2020. See ECF No. 25. 22 Although the Court’s dismissal was without prejudice, Plaintiff 23 did not replead her Monell claims. Rather, when Plaintiff did 24 move for leave to amend, her request was cabined to adding a new 25 defendant to the action. Mot. to Amend. at 2, ECF No. 28-1. In 26 that same motion, Plaintiff clearly stated her intent to 27 “delete[] allegations that relate to possible Monell 28 liability . . . consistent with the court’s [sic] ruling on 1 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a prior 2 stipulation between parties.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff presents no 3 persuasive reason why, after the close of factual discovery and 4 the dispositive motion deadline, she now wishes to reinstate 5 claims she had previously indicated she would relinquish. 6 Plaintiff implies that new facts were uncovered during discovery 7 but fails to specify what they are. 8 As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 9 diligently pursue her proposed amendment. Lacking “good cause” 10 under Rule 16(b), the Court declines to permit amendment. Also, 11 though the Court need not reach parties’ Rule 15 arguments in 12 light of this finding, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s undue 13 delay in seeking to reinstate her Monell claims is unlikely to 14 satisfy even the “liberal amendment policy” under Rule 15. 15 For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 16 motion to reinstate her Monell claims. 17 B. Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Amend 18 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of her motion to amend 19 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Local Rule 230. 20 As a threshold matter, Rule 60 is inapplicable here, because 21 Rule 60 only governs reconsideration of a “final judgement, 22 order, or proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court’s 23 order denying leave to amend is not a final order, as it is 24 neither a final judgment nor a directly appealable interlocutory 25 order. See Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 318 F.2d 622, 628-29 (9th 26 Cir. 1963) (discussing the scope of Rule 60). “Such orders, as a 27 class, contemplate further proceedings in the district court, and 28 [thus] fail to qualify under Cohen as a ‘final disposition of a 1 claimed right’ [permitting an appeal].” Bradshaw v. Zoological 2 Soc. Of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 3 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). 4 The Court thus declines to consider Plaintiff’s Rule 60 arguments 5 as grounds for reconsideration. 6 However, where reconsideration of a non-final order is 7 sought, the Court does have “inherent jurisdiction to modify, 8 alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 9 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). As Plaintiff notes, the Eastern District 10 Local Rules permit motions for reconsideration under Local 11 Rule 230. Local Rule 230(j) requires counsel to identify “the 12 material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for 13 which reconsideration is sought, including: (1) when and to what 14 Judge or Magistrate the prior motion was made; (2) what ruling, 15 decision, or order was made thereon; (3) what new or different 16 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 17 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 18 exist for the motion; and (4) why the facts or circumstances were 19 not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. Local 20 R. 230(j). As other Eastern District courts have explained, “a 21 motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion 22 or present evidence which should have been raised before.” 23 United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 24 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations omitted). 25 Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s previous findings in 26 support of its order denying leave to amend were “clearly 27 erroneous,” but she does not present a shred of new evidence to 28 support this contention. Mot. at 8. Plaintiff insists that her eee en eee ne nnn nnn on nn nnn nn non nnn I OE 1 delay in bringing her original motion to amend was due to the 2 actions of a former associate attorney at her firm, concluding 3 that “Plaintiff should be relieved of the mistake, inadvertence, 4 or excusable neglect of her original attorney.” Id. MThis, 5 however, is the same argument she presented to the Court in 2021. 6 The inquiry under the local rule is whether “new facts or 7 circumstances . . . which did not exist at the time of the prior 8 motion” are present. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(j) (emphasis added). 9 | They are not. Plaintiff’s motion amounts to little more “than a 10 disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the 11 cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its 12 original decision.” Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 13 1131. 14 As such, finding that Plaintiff has failed to meet her 15 | burden as the moving party, the Court denies her motion for 16 | reconsideration. 17 18 Til. ORDER 19 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 20 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Monell Claims and Motion for 21 | Reconsideration. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 25, 2022 24 cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 26 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28