Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02404/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02404-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF; 

GUERRERO, BAIL BOND; 

GUERRERO, OFFICER; 

VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; AND 

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY 

APPEAL

(ECF No. 60)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Certificate of 

Appealability, and Extension of Time to Amend Complaint. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 60.)

Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its decision dismissing with prejudice Defendant

City of El Cajon, (ECF No. 58), or to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. (See Mot. 

1–4, ECF No. 60.1) Plaintiff also moves the Court for a sixty-day extension to amend his 

Complaint. (Id. at 4–5.)

 

1 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

Case 3:14-cv-02404-JO-KSC Document 61 Filed 01/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

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

LEGAL STANDARD

In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration 

“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been 

made to any judge and has been refused or in whole or in part . . . .” Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). 

The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, “new or different facts 

and circumstances” which previously “did not exist.” Id.

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move “to 

alter or amend a judgment . . . no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Such 

reconsideration of a prior order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for 

reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 

331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883).

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice Defendant 

City of El Cajon from the case. (ECF No. 58.) The bulk of Plaintiff’s arguments relate to 

reasons why he was allegedly unable to name Defendant City of El Cajon in his original 

Complaint. (See Mot. 2–4, ECF No. 60.) However, the Court’s Order explained that even 

if Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of El Cajon were not time barred (i.e., any 

additional tolling applied), there was nothing in Plaintiff’s original complaint to indicate 

that the City of El Cajon knew or should have known that the action would have been 

brought against it, and thus the amended pleading did not properly relate back to the 

original complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). (ECF No. 58, at 12.)

Case 3:14-cv-02404-JO-KSC Document 61 Filed 01/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

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

Plaintiff repeats the same arguments, and again argues that a reference to “American 

Authority” in the original complaint should have put the City of El Cajon on notice for 

purposes of Rule 15(c). (Mot. 3, ECF No. 60.) But the Court rejected that same argument 

in its previous Order. (See ECF No. 58, at 13.) The Court sees no reason to reconsider its 

prior Order. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

II. Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

Plaintiff also requests a certificate of appealability for this portion of the Court’s 

order, but this is not a habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Accordingly, the 

Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for interlocutory appeal.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a district judge may certify 

an order for immediate interlocutory appeal if the judge is “of the opinion” that: (1) the 

order “involves a controlling question of law”; (2) there is “substantial ground for 

difference of opinion” as to the resolution of that question; and (3) “an immediate appeal 

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See 

Kaltwasser v. AT&T Mobility, 2011 WL 5417085, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011); In re 

LDK Solar Sec. Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Such certification 

should only be granted “in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal 

might avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 

785 (9th Cir. 1966).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements of Section 1292(b), and the 

Court cannot find any reason that an immediate appeal would materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the litigation. Instead, it would further delay resolution of this case 

and result in unnecessary trouble and expense. The Court thus finds the circumstances 

presented in this case do not overcome the general policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals, 

and that they do not merit § 1292(b) certification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for interlocutory appeal.

III. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff also requests sixty days from January 24, 2017 to amend his complaint 

Case 3:14-cv-02404-JO-KSC Document 61 Filed 01/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

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

against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiff notes that he has been denied access to the law 

library, is unable to make any copies, and thus will be unable to submit an amended 

complaint by January 24, 2017. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion for extension of time. Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL FILE his amended complaint 

on or before March 27, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-02404-JO-KSC Document 61 Filed 01/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4