Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFRENIERE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05308 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for amended judgment pursuant

to Rule 59(e). “A Rule 59(e) motion 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.’” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.

Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1063 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

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

None of these three circumstances exist here. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the

Judiciary Act of 1787 does not constitute “newly discovered evidence,” nor could this

centuries-old statute constitute “a change in controlling law.” Id. Plaintiff’s arguments that

the district court “committed clear error” are also unavailing. For the reasons set forth in this

Court’s order of July 6, 2006, Plaintiff’s effort to secure a preliminary injunction against

Defendant cannot succeed. Absent a viable claim to injunctive relief, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims to other forms of relief because the Defendant enjoys

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 59 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\5308\Order 59(e).wpd 2

immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, as explained in this Court’s order of

August 14, 2006. See also Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1187 n.2 (9th Cir.

1999) (holding that the University of California, “as a subdivision of the State of California,

is immune from damages”).

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated sufficient reason for this Court to reconsider

its decision to dismiss this lawsuit, his motion for amended judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 59 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2