Jamul Action Committee v. Dept. of Interior

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02148
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jamul Action Committee, No. 2:22-cv-02148-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian 15 Gaming, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 In a previous order, this court dismissed the operative complaint in this action without 19 | leave to amend and closed the case. See generally Order (Aug. 29, 2023), ECF No. 35. The 20 | complaint’s first claim, under the Freedom of Information Act, was moot because the plaintiff, 21 | the Jamul Action Committee (JAC), had received a copy of the document it sought, a map. /d. 22 | at 4. The remaining claims lacked support in a “cognizable legal theory” and did not meet the 23 | federal pleading standard for averments of fraud. See id. at 5—6. The court did not permit any 24 | amendments because the JAC did not explain how it could assert a potentially viable claim that 25 | would not impermissibly challenge the rights and claims of a federally recognized Indian tribe, 26 | the Jamul Indian Village, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. See id. at 6. The JAC 27 | now moves to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See

1 generally Mot., ECF No. 37. The motion is fully briefed and the court submitted it without a 2 hearing. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 40; Reply, ECF No. 40; Min. Order, ECF No. 42. 3 Rule 59(e) motions generally are for the purpose of correcting clear errors and accounting 4 for newly discovered evidence or intervening changes in the law. See, e.g., Garcia v. Biter, 5 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2016). They are not for relitigating disputes or for raising 6 arguments and evidence that a party could reasonably have raised earlier. See id. at 1132–33. The 7 JAC has not identified a clear error and has not cited newly available evidence or changes in the 8 law. Its request to reconsider relitigates its previous motion and advances the misleading claim 9 that the government has withheld or concealed a map that has long been publicly available. Nor 10 has the JAC explained how it can assert its proposed claims without making the Jamul Indian 11 Village a necessary party. See Order (Aug. 29, 2023) at 6 (citing Jamul Action Comm. v. 12 Chaudhuri, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1049–51 (E.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Jamul Action Comm. 13 v. Simermeyer, 974 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2020)). The JAC’s motion and reply also include a number 14 of puzzlingly incorrect assertions, such as that this court “did not grant [the] motion to dismiss 15 Claim One,” Mot. at 9, and “did not decide all the claims and issues with respect to all the 16 parties,” Reply at 1. See Order (Aug. 29, 2023) at 4 (dismissing claim one); id. at 5–6 (dismissing 17 all remaining claims; id. at 6 (denying leave to amend and closing case). 18 For these reasons, the court denies the motion at ECF No. 37. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: January 8, 2024.