Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00018-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BATOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAREN DIXON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Anthony Bator’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion 

to Set Aside Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, and Judgement” (ECF No. 25), in 

which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order adopting the Findings and Recommendations 

to dismiss the action and deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF Nos. 21–22).

1

 For the reasons 

set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 3, 2019, against Defendants Judge Karen Dixon 

and Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopez, asserting no specific causes of action but alleging that 

Defendant Dixon made improper rulings against Plaintiff in a state court action. (ECF No. 1.) 

 

1 Plaintiff’s motion, which seeks reconsideration of the order “filed on September 27, 2019” 

(ECF No. 25 at 1), appears to refer to the date the Order was signed by the District Court Judge, 

rather than the date of electronic filing, September 30, 2019. (See ECF No. 22 at 2.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB Document 26 Filed 01/31/20 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

No factual allegations were asserted against Defendant Lopez. (Id.) On January 28, 2019, 

Defendant Dixon filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff requested and was granted an 

extension of time to oppose the motion (ECF Nos. 12–13), but ultimately failed to file any 

opposition. 

On April 23, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff’s 

failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 14.) Instead of opposing 

the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a “Response to Order to Show Cause” (ECF No. 17), and an 

“Amended Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (ECF No. 15), which the Court 

construed as a motion to amend. 

On September 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations

recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and further recommending that the case be closed. (ECF No. 21.) 

On September 16, 2019, the Findings and Recommendations intended to be served on Plaintiff

was returned as “Undeliverable.” On September 30, 2019, this Court adopted the Findings and 

Recommendations in full, dismissing the action and entering Judgment in favor of Defendants. 

(ECF Nos. 22–23.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address with the Court. 

(ECF No. 24.) 

On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, on the basis 

that he was unexpectedly transferred to a different prison in September 2019. (ECF No. 25.) 

Plaintiff requests the Court reverse its order dismissing the case and allow him adequate time to 

articulate multiple objections to the proposed Findings and Recommendations. (Id.) The Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated herein. 

II. STANDARDS OF LAW

The Court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60.

See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A motion to alter or amend a 

judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of 

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a motion 

to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of 

Case 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB Document 26 Filed 01/31/20 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

judgment; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order. 

Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. 

Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 

twenty-eight days of entry of judgment and is therefore construed as a motion to alter or amend 

the judgment under Rule 59(e). 

Rule 59(e) does not list specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter, therefore the 

district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 

Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011), citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “should not be 

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Further, “[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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). 

“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:

(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment 

rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 

evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 

justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. 

III. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff fails to advance any argument that establishes he is entitled to relief under Rule 

59(e). More specifically, Plaintiff’s motion fails because he alleges neither new evidence nor an 

intervening change in the controlling law; nor does he identify any errors of law or fact in the 

judgment. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. Similarly, Plaintiff states he intends to raise numerous 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations, but he does not identify what those objections 

are. (ECF No. 25 at 3.) At most, Plaintiff argues he did not receive the Findings and 

Recommendations, and therefore did not have the opportunity to object to them, because he was 

Case 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB Document 26 Filed 01/31/20 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

unexpectedly transferred to a different prison at the beginning of September 2019. (Id. at 2.) The 

Court finds this argument unpersuasive. 

As noted in the Findings and Recommendations, the Court properly attempted to serve 

Plaintiff with its Findings and Recommendations. Local Rule 182(f) places Plaintiff under a 

continuing obligation to inform the Court of any change of address. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(f). 

Absent such notice, service of the Court’s orders is considered fully effective. Id. Plaintiff knew 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) was submitted without appearance and was pending 

before the court. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s failure to timely update his mailing 

address in compliance with the Local Rules does not warrant the extraordinary relief he seeks 

under Rule 59(e). See, e.g., Royal v. Hofer, No. 2:07-cv-00474-GEB-DAD-P, 2009 WL 2424589 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009) (denying reconsideration of dismissal for failure to comply with court 

orders, where delay resulted from plaintiff’s failure to update address with court); see also In re 

Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991) (denying motion to set aside default judgment under 

Rule 60(b), on basis that pro se party was responsible for apprising the court of his forwarding 

address and received constructive notice of the filing to which he failed to respond). 

Further, in light of the dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine2and judicial immunity (see ECF No. 21 at 4–6), the Court is persuaded 

that the result would be no different if the order was vacated and Plaintiff was permitted 

additional time to submit his (unidentified) objections. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration must be DENIED. 

///

 

2 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars jurisdiction in federal district court if the exact claims 

raised in a state court case are raised in the subsequent federal case, or if the constitutional claims 

presented to the district court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s denial of relief. 

Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2003), quoting D.C. Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 562, 483 n. 16 (1983). In addition to recommending dismissal of the action 

under this basis, the Findings and Recommendations also recommended denial of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend (ECF No. 15), on the basis that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments were futile. 

(ECF No. 21 at 6, citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1987) (holding that, while the 

court would normally grant a pro se plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint, it will not grant 

leave to amend where it is clear that no amendment can cure the complaint’s defects).) 

Case 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB Document 26 Filed 01/31/20 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has failed to advance any argument or new facts, circumstances, or controlling 

law to warrant the extraordinary relief he seeks under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00018-TLN-EFB Document 26 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 5