Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02009/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02009-0/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

----oo0oo----

BRIAN LOPEZ,

NO. CIV. S 04-2009 MCE PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CHIEF

ALBERT NAJERA, DETECTIVE

BEEZLEY, DETECTIVE KOHLES,

DETECTIVE HITCHCOCK, AND DOES

T THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On March 22, 2005, Plaintiff Brian Lopez filed a motion for

reconsideration of this court’s March 18, 2005 order, which

granted in part and denied in part the City of Sacramento

(“City”), Chief Albert Najera (Chief “Najera”), Detective

Beezley, Detective Kohles, Detective Hitchcock, and Does’ T

through X (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss. Because

the court did not commit clear error, Plaintiff’s motion is

Case 2:04-cv-02009-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/21/05 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material 1

assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the

briefing. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

DENIED. 

1

Although not expressly provided for in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, a court has the inherent authority to reconsider

its own orders. A motion for reconsideration is appropriate if

the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust or (3) decides that an intervening change in the

controlling law occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Kern-Tulare

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.

Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). A ruling is "clearly erroneous" only

when "the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." 

U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395(1948)).

Although Plaintiff claims that this court made a “grievous

error” in quoting the California Penal Code § 647(a) (“647(a)”)

at footnote four (4) on page five (5) of its March 18, 2005

Order, no error was made.

While the court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel is

passionate about this action, the present motion borders on being

frivolous. It is abundantly clear from the court’s order that

the only purpose in quoting 647(a) was to provide reference to

the statute under which Defendants arrested Plaintiff. (Mar. 18,

2005 Order at 5:7-8). The court did not use 647(a)’s language

Case 2:04-cv-02009-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/21/05 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

for any substantive purpose in its equal protection analysis. 

Further, the court was fully aware of the California Supreme

Court’s construction and validation of 647(a). See Pryor v. L.A.

Mun. Ct., 599 P.2d 636, 647-648(Cal. 1979); (Def.’s Mot to

Dismiss at 4:2.) Therefore, it should have been clear from a

plain reading of the order that the quoted language had no affect

on the court’s equal protection analysis or the corresponding

conclusion. 

In the future, motions that have no basis will be sanctioned

accordingly.

CONCLUSION

The court did not commit clear error by using only the text

of 647(a) in its March 18, 2005 Order when referencing the

statute under which Plaintiff was arrested. Plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02009-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 3