Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01520-3/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

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY MALMQUIST, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC 

ORDER

Plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the aboveentitled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court pursuant to 

Plaintiff’s “Requests”1to reverse the Order dismissing the action and entering judgement (ECF 

Nos. 11–13), which this Court construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is 

DENIED. 

///

///

 

1 Plaintiff’s filing is titled “Requests for Reversals of Reviews on Processed, 

Orders,Honorable Troy L.Nunley 11/26/2019 The Filings to the Oeders by Magistrate Allison 

Clairs,October 26.2019 Answers in the Requested Time Frames,By the Plaintiff as Requested:; 

10/31/2019 : The Objections of the Findings by Honorable Alison Claire, with Due Explanations, 

to Cure the Defects,By Plaintiff” (errors and misspellings in original) (ECF No. 13). 

Case 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 8, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On September 2, 2019, the 

magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that 

the 221-page Complaint contained a multitude of attachments, muddled facts, and was nearly 

incomprehensible and therefore did not contain a “short and plain” statement as required by Rule 

8(a)(1)–(3). (ECF No. 5 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint but 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend, instructing Plaintiff to limit any amended complaint to no more 

than 25 pages. (Id. at 3–4.) 

On August 27, 2019, shortly before the screening order was placed on the docket, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges Plaintiff is being recklessly prosecuted 

and makes references to an arresting officer, “artisan tools of the trade” which were lost due to a 

judicial order, and possibly an altercation between a “replacement roommate” and a “drunker 

roommate.” (See ECF No. 4.) On September 19, 2019, before the Court evaluated the FAC but 

after issuance of the order screening the Complaint (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff filed another “First 

Amended Complaint,” which the Court construed as Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”). (ECF No. 6.) This version of the complaint exceeded 100 pages and contained 

numerous attachments. (Id.) 

On October 17, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 

addressed both the FAC and SAC. (ECF No. 9.) The Findings and Recommendations found 

Plaintiff received sufficient opportunity to amend, filed three frivolous and incomprehensible 

complaints, and failed to comply with the 25-page limit, making it clear that he would be unable 

to produce a viable complaint. (Id. at 4–5.) Therefore, the Findings and Recommendations

recommended that all claims against all Defendants be dismissed, with prejudice, and that the 

case be closed. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations within 21 days. (Id.) Instead of filing objections, however, on November 5, 

2019, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).

2

 (ECF No. 10.) 

 

2 Plaintiff’s TAC was not screened before the Court adopted the already pending Findings 

and Recommendations. However, the Court notes Plaintiff did not obtain leave to file another 

Case 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 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

On November 26, 2019, this Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations, 

dismissed all claims against all Defendants, with prejudice, and closed the case. (ECF No. 11.)

Judgment was entered on the same day. (ECF No. 12.) On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed the

instant 44-page “Requests,” which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 

13.) The Court addresses and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated herein. 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

The Court may grant reconsideration under Rule 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 28 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 28 days of entry of 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 28 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 

///

 

amended complaint. Further, even construing the filing as a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 

15, Plaintiff’s request would have been denied on the basis that the proposed TAC remains as 

incomprehensible as Plaintiff’s original Complaint, FAC, and SAC, again demonstrating that 

further amendment in this action would be futile. 

Case 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 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

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

The Court finds Plaintiff fails to advance any argument that establishes he is entitled to 

relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s 44-page motion, like the earlier versions of his complaint, is 

difficult to understand because it is written in a stream-of-consciousness format. (See ECF No. 

13 at 1–2.) In the first two pages of his motion, Plaintiff appears to request that the Court reverse 

the magistrate’s findings and allow him to cure the errors of his previous complaints. (Id.) There 

does not, however, appear to be any argument of newly discovered facts, change in 

circumstances, or errors of law which would require the Court to reconsider its judgment pursuant 

to Rule 59(e). (See id.); Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. 

Nor does Plaintiff provide any justification for his failure to file objections to the Findings 

and Recommendations (ECF No. 9) he now seeks to reverse. At most, Plaintiff attaches several 

pages of the Findings and Recommendations that are underlined in certain sections that, 

presumably, Plaintiff takes issue with.

3

 (ECF No. 13 at 3–7.) But, again, Plaintiff provides no 

context or argument for the Court to consider. 

To the extent Plaintiff requests an explanation for why the case has been closed and 

suggests he did not previously receive this explanation from the Court (id. at 1), Plaintiff’s 

 

3 The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion consists of several attachments, the purposes of which 

are unclear. (ECF No. 13 at 9–44.) The attachments are as follows: (1) several pages from 

Plaintiff’s TAC (id. at 9–14); (2) a health care report from Sutter Hospital (id. at 15–25); (3) a 

health care report of unknown origin (id. at 26–30); (4) a doctor’s letter regarding Plaintiff’s

emotional support dog (id. at 31); (5) several complaints to the State Bar of California against 

various attorneys (id. at 32–34); (6) a “Monthly Prescription Drug Summary” (id. at 35–39); and 

(7) a “Check into Cash” loan agreement (id. at 40–44). 

Case 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 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

argument is unavailing. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 9), which Plaintiff

attached to the instant motion (ECF No. 13 at 6–7), clearly articulates the reasons for the Court’s 

judgment in this case. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an explanation, which he has 

already received, does not provide any basis to reconsider his motion. 

Finally, the Court notes that, despite having multiple opportunities to amend, Plaintiff has 

repeatedly failed to state a cognizable claim or to comply with the Court’s page limit. Nothing in 

Plaintiff’s motion indicates a change in circumstances, facts, or law that would now allow him to 

cure those defects. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish he is entitled to the extraordinary 

remedy he seeks under Rule 59(e). Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; McDowell, 197 F.3d at

1255 n.1. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, for the 

reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-01520-TLN-AC Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 Page 5 of 5