Robert Wooten v. Donald J. Trump

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00873
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT WOOTEN, No. 2:25-cv-00873-DC-AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 DONALD J. TRUMP, (Doc. No. 24) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s 18 June 24, 20251 order adopting the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and 19 closing this case. (Doc. Nos. 17, 24.) 20 In his pending motion, Plaintiff invokes Rules 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure, which applies after judgment has been entered and provides that “[a] motion to alter or 22 amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 59(e). “A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or 24 amend a judgment under [Rule] 59(e).” Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019, 25 1019 (9th Cir. 1983). A motion for reconsideration filed outside that time period is treated as a 26 Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order, which “must be made within a reasonable 27

28 1 The court’s June 24, 2025 order was entered on the docket on June 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 17.) 1 | time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c); Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016). 2 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 3 | evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 4 | an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration does not, however, give the 6 | moving party a “second bite at the apple.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) 7 | (citation omitted). 8 In addition, Local Rule 230Q) requires, in relevant part, that in moving for reconsideration 9 | of an order denying or granting a prior motion, a party must show “what new or different facts or 10 | circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what 11 | other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the 12 | time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. L.R. 230(j). 13 Here, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does not identify any basis that warrants 14 | reconsideration of the court’s June 24, 2025 order. Rather, Plaintiff reiterates his grievances 15 | against Defendant Trump. (Doc. No. 24.) Thus, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be 16 | denied. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED; and 19 2. This case shall remain closed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 29 | Dated: _December 31, 2025_ DUC Dena Coggins 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28