Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff properly filed two of her motions (Docket 1

#s 114 and 115) before the undersigned; she filed two other

motions (Docket #s 111 and 112), also directed at this court’s

orders of June 5 and 6, 2006, before the magistrate judge. The

magistrate judge vacated the hearing on those motions (Docket 

# 113) and directed plaintiff to file the motions before the

undersigned. She has not done so. Nevertheless, as these

motions (Docket #s 111 and 112) are also directed to the same

orders at issue in the motions pending before this court, the

court likewise rules on them herein.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BARBARA CLARK,

NO. CIV. S-05-2410 FCD KJM PS

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN M. REA, Acting Director,

Department of Industrial

Relations, and DENNIS

HERSHEWE, ESQ. and CAROL POPE,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on pro se plaintiff Barbara

Clark’s (“Clark”) motions to “vacate, amend or make moot” the 1

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 153 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The parties refer to said orders as the court’s orders 2

of June 2 and 5, 2006. Said orders were signed on those dates

but not filed until June 5 and 6, 2006, respectively. As the

orders were not effective until filing, the court uses herein,

the filed-date.

Because oral argument will not be of material 3

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal 4

Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

court’s orders, filed June 5 and 6, 2006 (Docket #s 107 and 2

109 ). Said orders adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 3

recommendations, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court entered 4

judgment of dismissal thereon. (Docket # 108, filed June 5,

2006.) 

Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Rule 59(e) and/or 60(b), 

to vacate the judgment. However, her motions wholly fail to

comply with the federal rules or this court’s local rules for

such motions. 

Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or

order, a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule

59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion

for relief from judgment). See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration of a final

judgment is appropriate only where (1) the court is presented

with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the court committed “clear

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or (3)

there is an intervening change in the controlling law. Id. at

1263. Here, plaintiff’s motions do not cite any authority or

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 153 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

provide any evidence that would justify granting the motions. 

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence nor does she

point to any evidence in the record that clearly establishes a

manifest error of law or fact, or any other legitimate reason

justifying relief from judgment. 

Indeed, plaintiff’s motions fail to present any arguments to

support reconsideration. Plaintiff simply states her

disagreement with the court’s rulings and seeks to reargue the

same issues she previously raised in her oppositions to the

motions to dismiss. As such, plaintiff’s motions to vacate must

be DENIED. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.

1985).

Plaintiff’s motions likewise fail to comply with the court’s

local rules, which require a party to set forth the material

facts and circumstances giving rise to the request for

reconsideration. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(k). 

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motions to vacate

(Docket #s 111, 112, 114, and 115). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: October 13, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 153 Filed 10/13/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 153 Filed 10/13/06 Page 4 of 4