Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01086-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

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

1 Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e); said Rule requires that any motion to alter or

amend a judgment be filed no less than 10 days after entry of

judgment. Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 26, 2007, was not

timely filed; however, the court has considered the motion

nonetheless and denies it on the merits.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BARBARA CLARK,

NO. CIV. S-07-1086 FCD KJM PS

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARRIE NEVANS, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The court has reviewed pro se plaintiff Barbara Clark’s

motion for reconsideration1

 of this court’s November 14, 2007

order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations of October 16, 2007 declaring plaintiff a

vexatious litigant, and HEREBY summarily DENIES plaintiff’s

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 81 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

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

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

motion.2

 Plaintiff does not cite any authority, provide any

evidence, or make any arguments that would justify granting the

motion. Rather, plaintiff merely reargues her underlying

opposition to defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious

litigant. Such argument is insufficient to grant

reconsideration. See Blacklund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386 (9th

Cir. 1985); Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F. Supp. 656 (E.D. Cal. 1986). Morever, abundant grounds existed

to make the vexatious litigant finding as set forth in the

magistrate judge’s October 16 order, and plaintiff did not file

objections thereto. Contrary to plaintiff’s instant assertions,

there is simply no basis to find that the underlying vexatious

litigant order was entered for an improper purpose. Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: January 8, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 81 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 81 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 3