Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02799-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL R. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Defendant.

No. 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff Michael R. Jones (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

brought this civil action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522a(g)(1) to remedy alleged violations of 

the Privacy Act of 1974. Compl., ECF No. 1. On February 26, 2013, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirely but granted Plaintiff leave to amend on his

“catch-all damages” claim only. Order, ECF No. 56. On May 13, 2013, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining catch-all damages claim with prejudice. Order, ECF

No. 59; see ECF No. 58. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration, which was denied. 

ECF Nos. 62, 73. On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed Objections. ECF No. 75. 

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK Document 83 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Presently before the Court is the question whether, for the purposes of calculating 

Plaintiff’s appellate deadlines under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4),

those Objections qualify as a “motion.”1 See ECF No. 80.

BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2014, this Court entered Judgment in this matter on behalf of 

Defendant. ECF No. 60. On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a New Trial. ECF 

No. 62. After considering the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found that Plaintiff 

failed to provide any grounds upon which the Court could reconsider its order, and 

accordingly denied Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 73.2 On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed 

Objections to the Court’s Order in which he stated that his unsuccessful motion “for a 

new trial was not a motion for reconsideration, but a motion for a real and initial 

Trial/Hearing in this case.” ECF No. 75. Plaintiff explained that he “did not bring the 

motion for a [trial] to have the case relitigated, but to have the case properly litigated by 

[trial] in the first place.” Id. Although Plaintiff set forth no new law, facts or argument in 

his Objections, he again requested that the Court grant him a “trial, the right to amend, 

reopen the case, and reverse/set aside the Order dated July 29, 2013.” ECF No. 75 at 

4. Because Plaintiff did not notice his Objections as a motion, the Court took no further 

action. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(b).3

///

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

otherwise noted.

2 Because Plaintiff moved for reconsideration within the twenty-eight day period prescribed by 

Rule 59(e), the Court treated Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. See

ECF No. 73.

3 Under the Local Rules, “all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned 

Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(b). Defectively noticed motions “shall be filed, but not 

set for hearing. Id. “[T]he moving party shall file and serve a new notice of motion setting forth a proper 

time and date.” Id. Plaintiff did not label his Objections as a motion as he had done with prior motions for 

reconsideration. Compare ECF No. 75 with ECF No. 62. Nor did Plaintiff notice his Objections as a 

motion under the local rules.

Case 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK Document 83 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 5
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

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. ECF No. 76. In response, Ninth Circuit noted that Plaintiff’s August 15, 

2013, Objections could be construed as a timely-filed motion making Plaintiff’s 

October 2, 2013, Notice of Appeal ineffective until the entry of the order disposing of the 

last such motion outstanding on this Court’s docket. See ECF No. 80; Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(4). As a result, the Ninth Circuit ordered that proceedings before it would be held in 

abeyance pending this Court’s ruling as to whether Plaintiff’s August 15, 2013, filing is a

“motion” as contemplated by Rule 4(a)(4) and, if so, how that motion is resolved. See

ECF No. 80.

ANALSYIS

Although Plaintiff’s August 15, 2013, Objections filing is “not a model of clarity,” 

the Objections at issue “can be read to indicate that [Plaintiff] was seeking 

reconsideration of [this] [C]ourt's order.” United States v. Cook, 599 F.3d 1208, 1212-13 

(10th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Objections as a second, 

successive motion for reconsideration, albeit improperly noticed and mislabeled, for the 

purposes of responding to the Ninth Circuit Order, ECF No. 80. Because Plaintiff’s

August 15, 2013, filing seeks reconsideration of a final judgment and was filed more than 

twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Objections 

as an attempt to seek review pursuant to Rule 60(b).

4

 See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, 

Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 

///

///

 4 It is irrelevant that Plaintiff’s Objections are largely directed at the Court’s July 30, 2013, Order 

denying reconsideration rather than the Court’s May 13, 2013, Order dismissing his Complaint. Plaintiff’s 

Objections filing is predicated on the same argument and facts as his initial motion for reconsideration and 

is therefore a second, successive motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 13, 2013, Order and

accompanying Judgment. In fact, were the Court to grant Plaintiff’s request, it would require that the Court 

reconsider and vacate its May 13, 2013, Order. See, e.g., ECF No. 75 at 4 (asking the Court to reopen 

the case).

Case 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK Document 83 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendant contends that, regardless, this Court still need not address Plaintiff’s 

Objections because, even if construed as a motion, it was untimely under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) 

which states, in relevant part, that:

If a party timely files in the district court any of the following 

motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time 

to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order 

disposing of the last such remaining motion: . . . (vi) for relief 

under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after 

the judgment is entered.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Defendant thus argues that because the judgment in this 

case “was entered on May 13, 2013, and the Objection was filed 94 days later, on 

August 15, 2013 . . . the Objection as a reconsideration motion fails the threshold 

timeliness requirement.” ECF No. 81 at 2. According to Defendant, then, “this Court 

need reach only the Rule 4 threshold issue and need not resolve the Objection itself.” 

Id. 

Defendant’s argument is well taken. Although Plaintiff’s August 15, 2013 filing 

challenges the Court’s July 30, 2013, Order denying Plaintiff’s initial motion for 

reconsideration, FRAP 4(a)(4) states that to be timely, motions for relief under Rule 60 

must be filed “no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, the rule does not appear to contemplate or account 

for serial motions for reconsideration. Judgment was entered in this matter on May 13, 

2013. See ECF No. 60. Therefore, the Court finds that, even construed as a motion for 

relief, Plaintiff’s August 15, 2013 Objections filing is not a motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)

because it was filed more than twenty-eight days after judgment was entered in this 

case.

Finally, even if Plaintiff’s Objections filing is construed as a motion, it fails on 

additional procedural and substantive grounds. As explained above, Plaintiff failed to 

properly notice his filing in violation of Local Rule 230(b). In addition, and most 

importantly, Plaintiff’s purported motion fails because his Objections simply reiterate the 

same argument and facts already presented by Plaintiff to this Court. See Maraziti v. 

Case 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK Document 83 Filed 07/01/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Pritchett v. McEwen, 1:10-CV-02008-JLT HC, 

2011 WL 2115647, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011); E.D. Cal. Local Rules 230(j). 

Moreover, mere dissatisfaction with the Court's order, or belief that the Court is wrong in 

its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Twentieth Century-Fox Film 

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). To the extent that Plaintiff’s 

Objections filing, ECF No. 75, may be construed as a motion, it is thus DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s August 15, 2013 filing, ECF No. 75, is 

not a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The Clerk of the 

Court is ORDERED to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for filing on the docket of Case 

No. 13-17088.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-02799-MCE-CMK Document 83 Filed 07/01/14 Page 5 of 5