Hammerlord v. Elliott

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 M NORMAN HAMMERLORD, Case No.: 23cv663-JO-KSC 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION MARA W ELLIOTT, San Diego City 13 Attorney, and TODD GLORIA, San Diego City Mayor, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 On April 12, 2023, pro se Plaintiff M Norman Hammerlord filed a complaint 19 alleging that Defendants San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott and San Diego City Mayor 20 Todd Gloria refused to provide him with public records. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff also 21 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 2. On June 9, 2023, the Court 22 granted Plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed the complaint in full under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(e)(2). Dkt. 3. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 24 4. 25 The Court denies this request for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not identified 26 newly discovered evidence, intervening law, clear error, or manifest injustice. Sch. Dist. 27 No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) 28 (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 1 |}evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 2 ||there is an intervening change in controlling law.”). Plaintiff has identified no new 3 evidence or change in law and the arguments he raises do not convince the Court that it 4 ||committed clear error. The Court finds no clear error in its decision to dismiss □□□□□□□□□□ 5 claims under federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. A private plaintiff cannot 6 || sue under these statutes, even if he only seeks money damages. See Allen v. Gold Country 7 || Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 cannot 8 ||‘‘give rise to civil lability”). The Court also finds no clear error in its dismissal of 9 || Plaintiff's § 1983 claim which was based on a violation of the California Public Records 10 |}Act. Whether intentional or unintentional, a violation of this state statute cannot support a 11 claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Rouse v. Pitkin, 2022 WL 834956, at 12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for 13 reconsideration [Dkt. 4]. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: August 8, 2023 18 19 20 21 “Tinsook Ohta 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28