Richard Gray v. Fresno Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GRAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00410 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 13 v. (Doc. 12) 14 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Richard Gray, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a 18 civil complaint against Fresno Police Department on April 9, 2025. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate 19 judge conducted a preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and found Plaintiff 20 failed to set forth a basis for jurisdiction and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 6 21 at 1, 6-7.) The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Id. Plaintiff filed a First 22 Amended Complaint on June 16, 2025. (Doc. 7.) The magistrate judge screened the FAC and on 23 July 23, 2025, issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the FAC be dismissed 24 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to allege federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 9 at 4-5.) The 25 Court notified Plaintiff that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff did not respond within the fourteen-day deadline. On August 18, 2025, the Court 27 performed a de novo review of the matter, adopted the Findings and Recommendations, dismissed 28 the action without prejudice, and entered judgment. (Docs. 10, 11.) 1 Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case, stating his mail was stolen so he could not object 2 to the Findings and Recommendations within the fourteen-day period. (Doc. 12 at 1.) Because 3 this motion was filed within 28 days of the final judgment that is being challenged, the Court 4 construes the Motion as one made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to modify 5 the judgment. (Id.) 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 7 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 8 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 9 law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation 10 omitted) (emphasis in original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 11 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. 12 Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a 13 motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. 14 Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). A Rule 59(e) motion 15 “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could 16 have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 17 n. 5 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 Plaintiff does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning Finding and 19 Recommendations, which formed the basis of the Court’s order. (See generally Doc. 9.) Rather, 20 Plaintiff contends that due to extenuating circumstances of his neighbors stealing his mail, he did 21 not receive the Finding and Recommendations until three days before the objection period lapsed. 22 (Doc. 12 at 1.) However, Plaintiff waited over a month after the time to file objections had passed 23 to file the Motion before the Court. (Id.) In effect, Plaintiff contends that his failure to meet the 24 Court’s deadlines was excusable neglect. However, “mistake or excusable neglect” is not a 25 recognized basis for Rule 59(e) reconsideration. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 26 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence or 27 previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and intervening change in controlling law as 28 cognizable grounds for Rule 59(e) reconsideration); see also Mendoza v. Garland, 2023 WL 1 6050581, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2023) (denying Rule 59(e) motion based on mistake or 2 excusable neglect). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court deadlines due to extenuating 3 circumstances, by itself, is not a basis for granting reconsideration. 4 Nor does Plaintiff set forth facts showing that manifest injustice would result if the Court 5 denied his motion. “Courts of the Ninth Circuit generally treat ‘manifest injustice’ as very nearly 6 synonymous with ‘clear error,’ defining manifest injustice as any ‘error in the trial court that is 7 direct, obvious and observable, such as a defendant’s guilty plea that is involuntary.’” Greenspan 8 v. Fieldstone Fin. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2018 WL 4945214, at *20 (D. Or. Aug. 22, 2018); see also 9 In re Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Ass’n, 302 B.R. 682, 683 (Banks. C.D. Cal. 2003) 10 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)) (defining manifest injustice under Rule 59(e)). 11 “Manifest injustice,” as it pertains to Rule 59(e), is not to be used as a Trojan Horse to breach a 12 court order for a second chance at litigating the same issue. All. for Wild Rockies v. United States 13 Forest Serv., 2020 WL 7082687, at *2 (D. Idaho Dec. 3, 2020). Plaintiff has not set forth any 14 facts to indicate a “direct, obvious and observable” error by the Court that would constitute 15 manifest injustice, thus he fails to meet his burden to justify reconsideration on that basis. 16 Ultimately, Plaintiff’s motion consists of reasons he was unable to comply with court 17 deadlines, despite over two-weeks passing after the time Plaintiff claims he received the Finding 18 and Recommendations and before judgment was entered in this case.1 Plaintiff fails to present any 19 newly discovered evidence, show that the Court committed clear error, or argue an intervening 20 change in controlling law that would necessitate alteration or amendment of the judgment. Wood, 21 759 F.3d at 1121. Rather, Plaintiff merely states that he should have a chance to amend his 22 complaint because he did not receive the Finding and Recommendation on the date service was 23 docketed, which is insufficient to support the relief requested. 24 /// 25 /// 26 1 Plaintiff had fourteen days to object to the Finding and Recommendations issued on July 23, 2025, 27 making the deadline to reply August 6, 2025. (Doc. 9 at 5.) Nevertheless, the Court did not issue judgment in this case until August 18, 2025. (Docs. 10, 11.) Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case on September 28 15, 2025. (Doc. 12.) 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff's Objections, construed as a Motion to 2 | Amend Judgment, (Doc. 12), is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ September 29, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28