1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS OLIVER, Case No.: 21cv1807-LL-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. ALTER JUDGMENT

14 KRISTIN TAVIA MIHELIC, et al., [ECF No. 30] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Justice II” which this Court 18 construes as a renewed Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 30. The Court finds the Motion suitable for submission without 20 oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. 21 I. Background 22 On October 28, 2021, Defendant United States filed a “Motion to Dismiss Claims 23 One and Three Through Seven of the Removed Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject 24 Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to Allege a Cognizable Claim.” ECF No. 5. On November 25 22, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas Oliver, proceeding pro se, filed an “Objection” in response to 26 the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11. On November 29, 2021, the Defendant 27 United States filed a Reply. ECF No. 13. On November 22, 2021, Defendants Bankruptcy 28 Court Judge Louise Adler, Region 15 Acting United States Trustee Tiffany Carroll, and 1 Trial Attorney Kristin Mihelic (hereinafter “Individual Defendants”) filed a “Motion to 2 Dismiss Claim Two of the Removed Amended Complaint for Failure to Allege a 3 Cognizable Claim.” ECF No. 9. On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Objection” in 4 response to the Individual Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 18], and on December 29, 2021, 5 the Individual Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 19]. On February 8, 2022, this Court 6 issued an Order Granting both Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice [ECF No. 22], and 7 judgment was entered accordingly. ECF No. 23. 8 On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Orders in Docket 9 Numbers 21 through 24.1 ECF No. 25-1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion and Affidavit for 10 Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the appeal. ECF No. 25. The Notice of Appeal 11 and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit 12 Court of Appeals. See Docket. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Justice,” 13 which this Court hereby construed as a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 14 of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 26. On March 30, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 15 Motion to Alter Judgment. ECF No. 29. 16 II. Legal Standard 17 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a party may file a motion to alter or amend 18 a judgment after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “Reconsideration is appropriate 19 if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 20 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 21 in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

, 22 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron,

(9th Cir. 23

24 25 1 In addition to the Order granting both Motions to Dismiss and the corresponding judgment [ECF Nos. 22, 23], on February 8, 2022, the Court also issued an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF 26 No. 21] and an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 24]. It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s Motion for Justice II seeks to alter the judgment in the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion 27 to Remand and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment or only whether it seeks to alter the judgment in the Court’s Order on the Motions to Dismiss. In any event, the Court’s reasoning and 28 1 2011) (“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be 2 granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which 3 the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or 4 previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest 5 injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.”). 6 The district court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant or deny 7 the motion, but “[a]mending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy 8 which should be used sparingly.” Allstate,

(internal quotation marks and 9 citation omitted). Ultimately, “[t]here is no requirement that reasons be stated for the denial 10 of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).” Briddle v. Scott,

(5th 11 Cir. 1995). 12 III. Analysis 13 Plaintiff’s renewed Motion contains the same arguments made in his previous 14 Motion to Alter Judgment and other pleadings. See ECF Nos. 11, 18, 25, 26. Although 15 Plaintiff is not satisfied with the Court’s Orders, he is not entitled to a second bite at the 16 apple under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s Motion does not identify any change in controlling law 17 or newly discovered evidence. Instead, Plaintiff simply restates the arguments already 18 made in his previous “Motion for Justice” and oppositions to the motions to dismiss and 19 takes issue with the Court’s conclusion and legal reasoning. The Court finds that Plaintiff 20 has not offered any basis for the Court to reconsider its previous orders. See Wood v. Ryan, 21

(9th Cir. 2014) (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion 22 where it denied a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider the judgment based on the same 23 arguments presented in the original motion). As this Court already stated in its previous 24 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment issued on March 30, 2022 (ECF No. 25 29), Plaintiff’s disagreement with the legal standard relied upon by the Court in its previous 26 orders does not warrant altering or amending the judgment because it is the required legal 27 standard under controlling authority. Plaintiff’s belief that the Court’s conclusions are 28 incorrect or unfair does not warrant altering or amending the judgment. 1 In sum, Plaintiff fails to present new evidence or describe an intervening change in 2 controlling law. Plaintiff also fails to show that the Court committed clear error or that its 3 || previous Orders were manifestly unjust. At best, Plaintiff rehashes arguments previously 4 asserted. Put simply, Plaintiff's opinion that the Court’s conclusions are incorrect or unfair 5 ||is not enough to alter or amend the judgment. 6 IV. Conclusion 7 The Court has considered all of the arguments and evidence in Plaintiff's Motion for 8 || Justice II, and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 13, 2022 NO 11 DE | 12 Honorable Linda Lopez 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28