Sinha v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAJESH K. SINHA, Case No. 24-cv-00046-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 80 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 9, 2025, the Court granted Defendant State of California’s motion to dismiss. 14 Dkt. No. 78. The Court also screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as to the 15 new, unserved Defendants and dismissed the case without leave to amend. Id. On June 5, 2025, 16 Plaintiff Rajesh K. Sinha filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 80. 17 He also filed an “errata” to this motion. See Dkt. No. 84. Plaintiff argues that the Court “failed to 18 consider material facts or key legal arguments” in its order. Dkt. No. 80 at 2. The Court construes 19 Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b). 20 Under Rule 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 21 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that 22 such motions may only be granted in limited circumstances: “(1) the district court is presented 23 with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial 24 decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” See 25 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 Rule 60(b), in turn, permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment where one or more 27 of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 1 discovered evidence, which by reasonable diligence could not have been discovered sooner; 2 (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; and 3 (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall 4 || provision” that “has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and 5 is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 6 action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790, 7 797 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). 8 Here, Plaintiff raises various arguments that he believes the Court missed or 9 misunderstood. See Dkt. No. 80. But the Court reviewed the 108-page Third Amended 10 Complaint (“TAC”) and Plaintiff's arguments in great detail, and identified several overlapping Wl deficiencies with the TAC. The Court did not overlook Plaintiff's arguments, but simply

2 disagreed with them and found Plaintiff's allegations insufficient to support a plausible claim E B against Defendants. The Court understands, and respects, that Plaintiff disagrees with its ruling. S 4 But Plaintiff has not identified a sufficient reason to justify reconsideration under Rule 59(e) or 3 5 Rule 60(b), and the Court thus DENIES the motion. Dkt. No. 80. The Court notes that Plaintiff 6 has filed notices of appeal, Dkt. Nos. 82 and 83, and the court of appeals is the appropriate venue for him to seek adjudication of any disagreements with the Court’s order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Z 18 19 Dated: 6/13/2025

1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28