Farr v. Paramo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JAMES EMMETT FARR, Case No.: 16-CV-1279 JLS (MSB)

13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 14 v. SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 15 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

16 Defendants. (ECF No. 94) 17

18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff James Emmett Farr’s Motion for 19 Reconsideration of Denial of Temporary Restraining Order (“Mot.,” ECF No. 94), 20 accepted on discrepancy on October 29, 2019. See ECF No. 95. In essence, Plaintiff asks 21 the Court to reconsider its September 26, 2019 Order denying as moot Plaintiff’s 22 August 26, 2019 ex parte motion requesting reconsideration of the Court’s June 20, 2016 23 denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order. See ECF Nos. 3, 82, 88. 24 As a preliminary matter, “the Court notes that there is nothing in the Federal Rules 25 of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Civil Procedure that provides for multiple motions for 26 reconsideration of an order.” United States v. Strain, No. 3:97-CR-00004, 2019 WL 27 5399475, at *1 (D. Alaska Oct. 22, 2019) (collecting cases); see also Williams v. Gittere, 28 No. 318CV00282MMDCBC, 2019 WL 5549230, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2019) (“The 1 Court will not entertain successive motions for reconsideration.”) (citing Dietz v. Bouldin, 2 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016)); Patterson v. Sullivan, No. 118CV00361DADEPGHC, 2019 3 WL 2387638, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2019) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 4 authorize successive motions for reconsideration.”); Gentry v. Sinclair, No. C99-289RSL, 5 2009 WL 1110466, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2009) (noting that there is not “any 6 procedure allowing for a motion to reconsider an order denying reconsideration”). This 7 alone merits denial of the instant Motion. See id. 8 Further, a party seeking reconsideration may not raise new arguments or present new 9 evidence if it could have reasonably raised them earlier. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 10 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 11 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff attaches various exhibits to his Motion that pre- 12 date the filing of his prior motion for reconsideration. Compare Mot. Ex. 1 (dated July 18, 13 19, 22, & 25, 2019), with ECF No. 82 at 5 (dated August 22, 2019). This also merits denial 14 of the instant Motion. See, e.g., Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH, 571 15 F.3d 873, 880–81 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s denial of reconsideration where 16 “new” evidence could have been presented to the district court previously); Pierce v. 17 Skolnik, No. 3:10-CV-0239-ECR-VPC, 2012 WL 28839 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2012) (denying 18 reconsideration based on declarations presenting previously available evidence). 19 Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion requests relief on the grounds that “Richard J. Donovan 20 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) is still in full possession and control of Plaintiff’s legal 21 papers and books and appears to be claiming the items and articles in question cannot be 22 found.” Mot. at 1; see also id. at 4. The Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration and his 23 contention that his “legal papers are irreplaceable,” see id. at 2; nonetheless, Plaintiff 24 provides no evidence that RJD did not in fact lose his belongings in the midst of or 25 following Plaintiff’s transfer. Because Plaintiff must “establish that he is likely to succeed 26 on the merits” to obtain the preliminary injunctive relief he requests, see Winter v. Natural 27 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689– 28 90 (2008)); see also Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 1 || (9th Cir. 2009), the Court must conclude—as it did in June 2016, see ECF No. 3 at 3— that 2 || Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this extraordinary remedy is warranted here. 3 The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’ s Motion (ECF No. 94). The Court notes that 4 denied Plaintiff’s previous motion as moot and without prejudice, see ECF No. 88 at 2; 5 should Plaintiff demonstrate a reasonable expectation of returning to RJD, he may renew 6 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion for a temporary 7 || restraining order at that time. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 6, 2019 □□ ll ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28