Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02653/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02653-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TANYA MCDANIEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANIEL POWELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 24, 

2015, plaintiff filed a declaration and “Motion for Judgment,” requesting that the court enter 

judgment against defendants. ECF No. 65. This motion is not one contemplated by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the undersigned’s June 5, 2015 order (ECF No. 

61) denying her motion to amend (ECF No. 58), and/or the undersigned’s June 16, 2015 order 

(ECF No. 64) denying her motion for reconsideration of the June 5 order (ECF No. 63). The 

issue of further amendment of the complaint is addressed substantively in the Findings and 

Recommendations issued on June 4, 2015, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be 

granted. ECF No. 60. Petitioner has objected to the Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 

62, and the district judge has not yet ruled. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC Document 66 Filed 07/29/15 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

In her most recent filing, plaintiff re-asserts arguments she made in her motion for 

reconsideration of the court’s order denying leave to amend. See ECF No. 63. Specifically, 

plaintiff asserts she was misled by a court clerk, who told her not to attach her proposed amended 

complaint to her motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 65 at 2. In addition, plaintiff argues that 

the undersigned generally failed to consider the arguments included in her first motion for 

reconsideration. ECF No. 65 at 3. The court previously addressed these arguments in its order 

denying plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 64. Plaintiff’s motion does not 

include new facts or other grounds that would merit the reconsideration of defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. See Local Rule 230(j); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. 

California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Moreover, even if plaintiff had 

presented a cognizable basis for reconsideration, that would not entitle her to entry of judgment 

against the defendants. 

Because the motion filed at ECF No. 65 seeks relief not authorized by the rules or by 

applicable law, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS the motion STRICKEN. Plaintiff is informed 

that the district judge will consider the availability of amendment in ruling on the Findings and 

Recommendations regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

DATED: July 28, 2015 

___________/S/ Allison Claire__________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC Document 66 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2