1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS OLIVER, Case No.: 21cv1807-LL-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. ALTER JUDGMENT 14 KRISTIN TAVIA MIHELIC, et al., [ECF No. 26] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Justice” which this Court 18 construes as a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 19 ECF No. 26. The Court finds the Motion suitable for submission without oral argument. 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. 21 I. Background 22 On October 28, 2021, Defendant United States filed a “Motion to Dismiss Claims 23 One and Three Through Seven of the Removed Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject 24 Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to Allege a Cognizable Claim.” ECF No. 5. On November 25 22, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas Oliver, proceeding pro se, filed an “Objection” in response to 26 the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11. On November 29, 2021, the Defendant 27 United States filed a Reply. ECF No. 13. On November 22, 2021, Defendants Bankruptcy 28 Court Judge Louise Adler, Region 15 Acting United States Trustee Tiffany Carroll, and 1 Trial Attorney Kristin Mihelic (hereinafter “Individual Defendants”) filed a “Motion to 2 Dismiss Claim Two of the Removed Amended Complaint for Failure to Allege a 3 Cognizable Claim.” ECF No. 9. On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Objection” in 4 response to the Individual Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 18], and on December 29, 2021, 5 the Individual Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 19]. On February 8, 2022, this Court 6 issued an Order Granting both Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice [ECF No. 22], and 7 judgment was entered accordingly. ECF No. 23. 8 On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Orders in Docket 9 Numbers 21 through 24.1 ECF No. 25-1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion and Affidavit for 10 Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the appeal. ECF No. 25. The Notice of Appeal 11 and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit 12 Court of Appeals. See Docket. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff also filed the instant “Motion 13 for Justice,” which this Court hereby construes as a motion to alter judgment pursuant to 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 26. 15 II. Legal Standard 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a party may file a motion to alter or amend 17 a judgment after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “Reconsideration is appropriate 18 if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 19 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 20 in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 21 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 22 2011) (“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be 23 24 25 1 In addition to the Order granting both Motions to Dismiss and the corresponding judgment [ECF Nos. 22, 23], on February 8, 2022, the Court also issued an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF 26 No. 21] and an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 24]. It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s Motion for Justice seeks to alter the judgment in the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion 27 to Remand and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment or only whether it seeks to alter the judgment in the Court’s Order on the Motions to Dismiss. In any event, the Court’s reasoning and 28 1 granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which 2 the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or 3 previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest 4 injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.”). 5 The district court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant or deny 6 the motion, but “[a]mending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy 7 which should be used sparingly.” Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted). Ultimately, “[t]here is no requirement that reasons be stated for the denial 9 of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).” Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 381 (5th 10 Cir. 1995). 11 III. Analysis 12 Here, Plaintiff asserts the following: 13 Response to Specific Elements of the Court Orders[:] 14 The staff attorney wrote in doc no. 22 that I’m ‘unhappy with the outcome of 15 [my] bankruptcy court proceedings.’ That’s not correct. I’m unhappy with the rampant corruption that we have today in the syndicate. I’m unhappy that the 16 syndicate is not doing a damn thing (corrective) about my case. I’m unhappy 17 that authority without accountability permeates the syndicate. And I’m unhappy that we have 50,000+ innocent people in prison serving time for 18 crimes they didn’t commit and millions of others who have been victimized 19 by the syndicate. Under “Legal Standards” in doc no. 22, the true standard should be that 20 everyone not break the rules and laws and not be criminals, particularly those 21 who make or enforce them! Dr. Ron Paul, the greatest congressman this country has ever had post-1900, has always said that if an act is illegal for a 22 person, it should also be illegal for the government. Everyone outside of 23 government agrees. 24 Lastly, in doc no. 22, the staff attorney writes, ‘a federal employee was acting in the scope of [her] employment at the time of the incident.’ Nowhere in the 25 universe can committing crimes be considered ‘acting in the scope’ of 26 employment. To dismiss anything on these grounds is the ultimate insult to humanity. 27 28 1 ECF No. 26 at 4 (internal citation omitted). Although Plaintiff is not satisfied with the 2 Court’s Orders, he is not entitled to a second bite at the apple under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s 3 Motion does not identify any change in controlling law or newly discovered evidence. 4 Instead, Plaintiff simply restates the arguments already made in his oppositions to the 5 motions to dismiss and takes issue with the Court’s conclusion and legal reasoning. The 6 Court finds that Plaintiff has not offered any basis for the Court to reconsider its Order 7 granting the motions to dismiss. See Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) 8 (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion where it denied a Rule 59(e) motion 9 to reconsider the judgment based on the same arguments presented in the original motion). 10 Although Plaintiff does not agree with the legal standard relied upon by the Court in its 11 Order granting the motions to dismiss, this does not warrant altering or amending the 12 judgment because it is the required legal standard under controlling authority. Specifically, 13 Plaintiff argues that “[t]he true standard should be that everyone not break the rules and 14 laws and not be criminals, particularly those who make or enforce them!” (original 15 emphasis included). ECF No. 26 at 4. However, Plaintiff’s belief that the Court’s 16 conclusions are incorrect or unfair does not warrant altering or amending the judgment. 17 In sum, Plaintiff fails to present new evidence or describe an intervening change in 18 controlling law. Plaintiff also fails to show that the Court committed clear error or that its 19 order granting the motions to dismiss was manifestly unjust. At best, Plaintiff rehashes 20 arguments previously asserted. Put simply, Plaintiff’s opinion that the Court’s conclusions 21 are incorrect or unfair is not enough to alter or amend the judgment. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IV. Conclusion 2 The Court has considered all of the arguments and evidence in Plaintiff's Motion for 3 || Justice, and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 30, 2022 NO 6 Je J 7 Honorable Linda Lopez 3 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28