(PC) Miles v. Laursen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Georgia Miles, No. 2:23-cv-00663-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Phillipa Laursen, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, objects to the dismissal of her case, which 18 | this court construes as a motion to reconsider. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies 19 | plaintiff's motion. 20 Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See First Am. Compl., ECF 21 | No.7. On July 25, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed without 22 | prejudice for failure to file an in forma pauperis application. See First F&Rs, ECF No. 15. 23 | Plaintiff filed objections, see Obj., ECF Nos. 17, 18, and an application to proceed in forma 24 | pauperis, see Appl., ECF No. 16. On October 2, 2023, the undersigned declined to adopt the 25 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations given plaintiff's new application. See Prior 26 | Order (Oct. 2, 2023), ECF No. 21. Given uncertainty surrounding the status of plaintiff's 27 | paperwork, the undersigned provided plaintiff one final opportunity to comply with the 28 | requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. /d. at 2. Plaintiff responded, see Resp., ECF No. 23,

1 and the magistrate judge took plaintiff’s response under consideration when issuing new findings 2 and recommendations, see Second F&Rs at 2, ECF No. 24. The magistrate judge recommended 3 the undersigned dismiss this case without leave to amend because the first amended complaint did 4 not “state any claims for relief and it d[id] not appear the problems c[ould] be fixed.” F&Rs at 5, 5 ECF No. 24. The magistrate further recommended denying the application to proceed in forma 6 pauperis on the basis the action was frivolous. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then filed objections. Obj., ECF 7 No. 26. The undersigned carefully considered plaintiff’s statements before concluding the 8 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by the proper 9 analysis. See Prior Order (Mar. 28, 2024), ECF No. 27. The court adopted the findings and 10 recommendations on March 28, 2024, see Prior Order (Mar. 28, 2024), and judgment was entered 11 the same day, see J., ECF No. 28. 12 Plaintiff then filed the instant motion objecting to the dismissal of her case. See Mot. at 2, 13 ECF No. 29. The court construes this request as a motion to reconsider. Where, as here, the 14 court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration or relief from 15 judgment is appropriately brought under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 16 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F. 2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 17 871 F. 2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). A motion is construed as a motion to alter or amend 18 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed no later than 28 days after the 19 entry of judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 20 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Here, plaintiff filed her motion within 28 days after judgment was entered. See Mot. 22 Accordingly, this court analyzes the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). “Under 23 Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 24 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 25 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners 26 v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j)(3)–(4) requires that a 27 movant seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or 28 any other grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court’s prior order. E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)–(4). ] Plaintiffs filing does not provide any justification for the court to reconsider the prior 2 | ruling. See generally Mot. While plaintiff's arguments include reference to the magistrate 3 | judge’s first findings and recommendations, see Mot. at 3-5, these findings and recommendations 4 | were denied, and plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond, see Prior Order (Oct. 2, 2023). 5 | Ultimately, because plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on the 6 | grounds the action was frivolous, plaintiff's arguments do not provide adequate grounds for 7 | reconsideration. Further, to the extent plaintiff contends the magistrate judge was biased against 8 | her and should have been recused from this case, this court reiterates that nothing in the record 9 | suggests such impartiality or that the magistrate judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning 10 | plaintiff or any party. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | DATED: April 22, 2024. / / 13 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27