Shawn Maxwell v. Lisa Pacione, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00409
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN MAXWELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00409 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 13 v. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) 14 LISA PACIONE, et al., (Docs. 77, 78, 79) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Shawn Maxwell, proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 April 5, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 19 Following the Court’s grant of Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s original 20 complaint (see Docs. 48, 52), on July 11, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s untimely, construed 21 motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice. (Docs. 22 73, 74.) The Court found that granting Plaintiff leave to file the lodged amended complaint would 23 be futile given it failed to remedy the pleading deficiencies previously identified by the Court, 24 repeated claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and judicial immunity and failed to 25 adequately allege 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the County Defendants. Judgment was entered 26 that same day. (Doc. 75.) 27 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 77.) Defendants Cynthia Loo, 1 Raymonda Marquez, and Lisa Pacione (collectively, the “Superior Court Defendants”) filed an 2 opposition on August 19, 2025, and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 29, 2025. (Docs. 78, 79.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 4 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered 5 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 6 Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted; 7 emphasis in original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 8 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 9 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for 10 reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 11 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be 12 used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been 13 raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) 14 (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 Plaintiff does not dispute the underlying facts as to his failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 16 states he identified violations pursuant to section 1983, as well as municipal liability, and should 17 have been given leave to amend. Plaintiff contends that the Court (1) misapplied the anti-SLAPP 18 framework as the underlying state court action was confidential pursuant to state law, (2) 19 overextended the doctrine of judicial immunity, and (3) did not provide special consideration to 20 the fact that Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. Plaintiff requests the Court to vacate the judgment, 21 reinstate the case, and grant Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 77 at 2-3.) 22 The Superior Court Defendants argue that denial of leave to amend was not clear error as 23 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Eleventh Amendment immunity, 24 and judicial immunity, and “there is no plausible way to cure the defects through amendment.” 25 (Doc. 78 at 3.) Additionally, the Superior Court Defendants assert that Plaintiff “undoubtedly 26 challenges judicial acts taken” by said Defendants “in their judicial capacities” and “no 27 allegations suggest that these judicial acts were taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.” Id. 1 In reply, Plaintiff argues that his amended complaint was timely filed, the motion asserted 2 | clear error of law arising from the Court’s failure “to review the [first amended complaint],” he is 3 | entitled to further leave to amend, judicial immunity does not bar claims based on non-judicial 4 | conduct, and that he has shown good cause for the motion. (See Doc. 79.) 5 Plaintiff addresses none of the Court’s prior analysis and provides no argument to support 6 | a finding of clear error warranting an “extraordinary remedy” such as the one Plaintiff seeks. 7 | Plaintiff fails to identify any newly discovered evidence, show the Court committed a clear error 8 | in evaluating the allegations in the pleadings, or argue an intervening change in controlling law 9 | necessitates an amendment of the Court’s order. See Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Rather, Plaintiff 10 | merely disputes the findings of the Court and presents substantially the same arguments he 11 | offered earlier and which the Court rejected. See Gates v. Colvin, No. ED CV 16-00049 AFM, 12 2017 WL 8220232, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) (“Mere disagreement with the result does not 13 | justify the filing of a Rule 59(e) motion.”) (citing U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah 14 | River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 77) is 15 | DENIED. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: _ November 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28