Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02653/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02653-10/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 GRACE 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 June 18, 

2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 5, 2015, order denying her 

motion for leave to amend.1

 ECF No. 63. The court will deny plaintiff’s motion because it does 

not point to any new facts, circumstances, or law relevant to the court’s order. 

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 

1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 

1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to 

make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. 

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used 

 

1

 It is somewhat difficult to determine, based on plaintiff’s motion, which of the court’s orders 

she is asking it to reconsider. However, because plaintiff relies primarily on arguments relating to 

why she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint to her May 27, 2015, motion for leave to 

amend, the court considers it a motion to reconsider its order denying that motion. 

Case 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC Document 64 Filed 07/16/15 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

to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 

1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered 

by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S. 

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick 

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 

Cir. 1983). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 

634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds 

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did 

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

In her motion, plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its order denying her 

motion for leave to amend because she was misled on two occasions. First, she states she was 

incorrectly told by a court clerk when she was preparing to file her motion for leave to amend that 

she did not need to attach her proposed complaint. ECF No. 63 at 1–2. Second, she states that 

she was misled by the undersigned as to what title to give her amended complaint. Id. at 2–3. 

Neither of plaintiff’s arguments provide a basis for reconsidering the court’s order. 

Plaintiff’s first argument seems to be based on the assumption that the court would have granted 

her May 27, 2015, motion for leave to amend if she had attached her proposed amended 

complaint. Because plaintiff omitted her proposed complaint on the advice of a court employee, 

plaintiff believes that her motion should be reconsidered and granted. The most obvious problem 

with this argument is that plaintiff does not attach the proposed amended complaint to her motion 

for reconsideration. Consequently, the court has no way of knowing whether it would have 

granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend if she had attached the proposed amended complaint 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC Document 64 Filed 07/16/15 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

at issue.2

Plaintiff’s second argument, that the court misled her with regards to the appropriate 

caption for her proposed amended complaint, is also without merit. As the court explained at its 

May 27, 2015, hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, its previous order dismissing plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint with leave to amend mistakenly instructed her to entitle her next 

amended complaint “Second Amended Complaint,” instead of “Third Amended Complaint.” See 

ECF No. 45 at 15. Plaintiff entitled her next amended complaint “Second Amended Complaint,” 

per the court’s order. ECF No. 46. This titling error did not prejudice plaintiff in any way and 

accordingly the court’s instruction to do so does not constitute a basis for reconsidering the 

court’s denial of leave to amend. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, ECF No. 63, is DENIED. 

DATED: July 16, 2015 

 

2

 If the proposed amended complaint plaintiff almost attached was the complaint attached to her 

June 3, 2015, motion for leave to amend, ECF Nos. 58, 59, then it is clear that the court would 

not, in fact, have granted her motion. The court denied plaintiff’s June 3, 2015, motion for leave 

to amend on June 5, 2015, because it determined based on the proposed amended complaint that 

leave to amend would be futile. ECF No. 61. 

Case 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC Document 64 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 3