Jamul Action Committee v. Dept. of Interior

Opinion

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

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