Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01764/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01764-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK

ORDER

On July 13, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF NO. 39. The Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s First and Fifth Causes of Action without leave to amend, dismissed Plaintiff’s 

Second and Fourth Causes of Action with leave to amend, and gave Plaintiff leave to 

amend his Third Cause of Action solely in order to state a claim that Defendant Haven 

Human Society violated his due process rights. Id. Presently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 42. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

Plaintiff purports to bring his Motion pursuant to either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(d) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Id. Neither rule provides a procedural vehicle for 

Plaintiff’s Motion. Rule 59(e) is directed at a motion to “alter or amend a judgment.” The 

 

1

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise indicated. 

Case 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK Document 49 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Court’s order dismissing the FAC is not a final judgment, but an interlocutory order. See

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, 9th Circuit Edition (Rutter Group 2016), at § 9:303 

(citing Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 1370 n. 2 (10th 

Cir. 1979)). Similarly, Rule 60(d) does not provide an avenue for reconsideration 

because Plaintiff’s Motion does not qualify as an independent action. See Walnut Creek 

Manor, LLC v. Mayhew Center, LLC, No. C 07-5664, 2013 WL 6491341 at *3 n. 2 (E.D. 

Cal. Dec. 10, 2013) (“Dunivan has not filed an ‘independent action here but, rather, 

seeks relief from a prior order issued in this action.” (emphasis in original)). 

Even if Plaintiff provided the Court with a proper procedural vehicle for 

reconsidering its Order, the Court would decline to do so. Mere dissatisfaction with the 

court's order, or belief that the court is wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief. 

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981); 

see also McAfee v. United States, No. CVF96-5720, CV 05-0438, 2005 WL 3287227 at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2005). Accordingly, a district court may properly deny a motion for 

reconsideration that simply reiterates an argument already presented by the petitioner. 

Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff’s Motion does 

nothing more than ask the Court to rethink what it has already analyzed in depth, and 

Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the Court’s conclusions does not provide a basis for 

reconsideration. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 42) is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 4, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK Document 49 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2