Dolores Lucero v. Philip Lewis

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03116
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOLORES LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-03116-DC-SCR (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 PHILIP LEWIS, (Doc. No. 32) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s 18 September 17, 20251 order adopting the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 19 recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 30, 32.) 20 In her pending motion, Plaintiff invokes Rules 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure, which applies after judgment has been entered and provides that “[a] motion to alter or 22 amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 59(e). “A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or 24 amend a judgment under [Rule] 59(e).” Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019, 25 1019 (9th Cir. 1983). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 26 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 27 1 The court’s September 17, 2025 order was entered on the docket on September 18, 2025. (Doc. 28 No. 30.) 1 | unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 2 | Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration does 3 | not, however, give the moving party a “second bite at the apple.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 4 | 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). In addition, Local Rule 230() requires, in relevant part, 5 | that in moving for reconsideration of an order denying or granting a prior motion, a party must 6 | show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 7 || were not shown” previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or 8 | circumstances were not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was 9 | considered. L.R. 230(j). 10 Here, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was timely filed because judgment was 11 | entered on September 18, 2025, (Doc. No. 31), and Plaintiff filed the pending motion for 12 | reconsideration on October 1, 2025 (Doc. No. 32). However, Plaintiff does not identify any basis 13 | that warrants reconsideration of the court’s September 17, 2025 order. Plaintiff contends the court 14 | committed manifest error, but the arguments Plaintiff advances in her motion were already raised 15 | inher opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and in her objections to the findings and 16 | recommendations, and the court considered and rejected those arguments. (See Doc. Nos. 27, 30.) 17 | Thus, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED; and 20 2. This case shall remain closed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 23 | Dated: _December 28, 2025 DUC Dena Coggins 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28