Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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 

f\LEt.i 

tl16J\JM21 PM l:1t 

,fkflt~NUD~S~~~?tJnlt.~U l.A 

U\:_t......·.:,.:..t1-­

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN COBB, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b), filed by Plaintiff John Cobb. (Docket No. 86.)1 Plaintiff asks the Court 

1 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants' and Plaintiffs ex parte 

applications to file late opposition and reply briefs, respectively. (Docket Nos. 94,95.) 

The Court considers Defendants' Opposition and Plaintiffs Reply in this Order. The 

Court DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte application to the extent it requests the Court order the 

identification of two witnesses, order Defendants to pay for these witnesses' depositions, 

and order Defendants to produce these witnesses at triaL These issues are also raised in 

Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and/or To Re-Open Discovery. (Docket No. 93.) The 

Court will address those issues after full briefing. The Court DENIES Plaintiff s Request 

for Judicial Notice of a separate civil rights case involving Plaintiff, Case No. 16-cvo1474-MMA-NLS (S.D. CaL). Plaintiff asserts, in conclusory fashion, that this case is 

related to the instant dispute because he was allegedly jailed as a result of the incidents 

alleged in Case No. 16-cv-OI474, and that imprisonment disrupted a motion in this case 

3: 13-cv-O1 353-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 97 Filed 06/27/16 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 

to reconsider its orders denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint for a third 

time (Docket No. 76) and his motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 81.) For the 

reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Cobb, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on June 11,2013. 

(Docket No.1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed and served the operative Second Amended 

Complaint on June 5, 2015 ("SAC"). On May 9,2016, this Court denied Plaintiff's 

motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. (Docket No. 76.) Plaintiff sought to 

add a defendant, Officer Jason Zdunich, and add claims against Zdunich and the City of 

San Diego based on information learned from discovery. The Court found that 

amendment would prejudice the named and proposed defendants, and that Plaintiff had 

not shown diligence in seeking to amend. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its 

denial. 

On May 13,2016, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 

(Docket No. 81.) Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration ofthis denial. 

DISCUSSION 

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding upon a showing of mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or "any other 

reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & 

Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the catch-all provision should 

be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice). It appears that 

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the orders based on mistakes by the Court and himself. 

seeking to depose Atilia Cilingir. (Docket No. 62.) This Court denied Plaintiff's request 

to depose Cilingir, finding that "[a]ny issues involving Cilingir ... bear no relevance to 

the claims asserted in this case." (Docket No. 64.) Given that this Court decided 

Plaintiff's request to depose Cilingir on the merits and that Plaintiff has not shown that he 

was prejudiced by his alleged imprisonment, the Court finds that Case No. 16-cv-01474 

is not relevant to the issues in this case and, as such, declines to take judicial notice. 

2 

3: 13-cv-O1353-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 97 Filed 06/27/16 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 

Motions for reconsideration "should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances." Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 05-cv-1660-J, 2007 WL 

2456223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007). "A motion for reconsideration may not be 

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 

have been raised earlier in the litigation." Life Techs. Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 11-cv00703,2012 WL 10933209, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11,2012) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. 

v. Estate o/Bishop, 229 F.3d 877,890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, motions to reconsider 

are not a platform to relitigate arguments and facts previously considered and rejected. 

See Harrison v. So/amorlDanek Grp., Inc., No. 94-cv-0692, 1998 WL 1166044, at *3 

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 1998). 

I. Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 

Plaintiff asserts numerous arguments why the Court should reconsider its denial of 

his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. In sum, he argues that he had a 

right to file his motion to amend by the scheduling order's deadline for filing pretrial 

motions and the Court made a mistake in its interpretation of the scheduling order's 

deadlines; that he could not have amended his complaint before the completion of 

discovery; and that Defendants cannot claim prejudice by the proposed amendment 

because they attempted to delay the deposition of proposed defendant Zdunich and 

"should have been prepared that Plaintiff would make an amended complaint." (Docket 

No. 86.)2 

The Court considers and rejects Plaintiffs arguments. To the extent Plaintiff 

argues that the Court rejected his motion based on untimeliness under the scheduling 

order, he misreads the Court's order. The Court did not deny his motion based on the 

2 Plaintiff also argues that the Court used the wrong standard in assessing his motion for 

leave to amend. The Court applied the good cause standard from Rule 16, but Plaintiff 

argues that Rule 15 should apply. The Court already considered and rejected Plaintiffs 

argument that Rule 15 applies. See Docket No. 76. Thus, this is not an appropriate basis 

to grant reconsideration of Plaintiffs motion. See Harrison, 1998 WL 1166044, at *3. 

3 

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 97 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

timeliness of its filing, but rather because it was filed so late in the litigation and granting 

the motion would necessitate the reopening ofdiscovery, thus further delaying the case. 

(Docket No. 76.) Second, the Court already considered Plaintiffs arguments about 

newly discovered evidence and potential prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff s current 

arguments offer nothing new and have not shown that the Court's denial was in error. 

His contention that Defendants acted in bad faith by delaying the deposition of Officer 

Zdunich could have been raised in his earlier motion. "A motion for reconsideration 

cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by 

the Court's application ofthe facts to binding precedent or because he disagrees with the 

ultimate decision." See Moses v. White, No. 13-cv-2610, 2013 WL 6795623, at *1 (S.D. 

Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion to reconsider the Court's denial of his 

request to file a third amended complaint is DENIED. 

II. Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff argues that the Court should reconsider its denial of his motion for 

summary judgment because Plaintiff "made an error" in how he described Defendant 

Rodriguez's description of their encounter, and "his error ... enables the District Court to 

rule that Plaintiff was unreasonably detained by Defendants." (Docket No. 86-2 at 10, 

11.) The Court again rejects Plaintiffs argument. Plaintiff could have raised this issue in 

his motion for summary judgment. Assuming the Court can grant relief for mistake by a 

party, but see Bufordv. Wasco State Prison, No. 01-cv-05192, 2007 WL 2750684, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 19,2007) (finding that plaintiffs own error is not grounds to set aside an 

order under Rule 60), Plaintiff has neither explained nor presented any legal authority to 

demonstrate how this mistake creates genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs Motion to reconsider the Court's denial of his motion for summary judgment is 

DENIED.3 

3 The Court notes that Plaintiffmakes some arguments that do not relate to either ofthe 

orders at issue in this Motion. First, he alleges that impeachment evidence, specifically 

4 

3: 13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 97 Filed 06/27/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff has not met the high standards to warrant granting his Motion for 

Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June21= ,2016 

~>,J..J.L"- T. BENITE): 

United States District Judge 

"evidence held by the 'Field Interview Report' witnesses, is being suppressed." Docket 

No. 86-2 at 5. To the extent Plaintiff argues that the Court has suppressed this evidence, 

he is incorrect. Motions in limine have not been filed, much less decided. To the extent 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are withholding relevant evidence, the proper avenue for 

reliefis a motion to compel during the discovery period. Second, Plaintiff asserts that 

government officials discriminated against him in connection with his 2006 arrest and 

conviction for a lewd bathroom act at the University ofCalifornia at San Diego campus. 

The 2006 incident has nothing to do with the events ofthis case and is an attempt by 

Plaintiff to relitigate old cases and old issues. See Docket No. 64 (order discussing 

Plaintiff's attempts to relitigate the 2006 incident). 

5 

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 97 Filed 06/27/16 Page 5 of 5