Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01168/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01168-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dunnion Law Firm
Defendant
Greg Gallegos
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG GALLEGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUNNION LAW FIRM,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 15)

Plaintiff, Greg Gallegos, is proceeding pro se in this action. On January 8, 2020, the 

previously assigned district judge dismissed this case without prejudice and without leave to 

amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 13), adopting the recommendation of the 

assigned magistrate judge, who explained in findings and recommendations issued September 23, 

2019, that “[p]laintiff’s claim against the defendant law firm appears to be a state law claim for 

fraud or malpractice arising out of the defendant’s representation of Plaintiff in a personal injury 

action,” and therefore that “[p]laintiff must pursue his state law claim in state court, not federal 

court.” (Doc. No. 6 at 3.)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s document filed February 12, 2020, titled “Certificate of 

Service #11504.” (Doc. No.15.) Out of an abundance of caution, the court will construe 

plaintiff’s filing as a motion for reconsideration and, for the reasons explained below, will deny 

that motion. 

Case 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 2
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

“A motion for reconsideration 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,” and it “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) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original).

In the pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff raises assertions that are difficult to 

decipher, confusing and in some instances nonsensical. For example, plaintiff states that the 

assigned magistrate judge “ignored from 9-2019-now on technicalty double taking away truths 

via repetition, lies and misdirection coniving.” (Doc. No. 15 at 1) (emphasis and misspellings in 

original). Plaintiff’s motion also includes contentions that the magistrate judge, the previously 

assigned district judge, and/or court personnel have engaged in lies, cover up, malice, 

misdirection, conniving, perjury, and receiving pay-offs, among other things, and also includes 

language that could be construed as threatening.1 However, plaintiff does not raise any new 

arguments regarding the substance of the court’s order dismissing this action due to lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s document (Doc. No. 15), construed as a motion for 

reconsideration, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 For example, in the motion plaintiff states: “When L. O’Neill via laziness join bogus coherts 

above via lies, just Congressman NUNES erace L. ONeill for crimes above herein this case, 

because LIFE TIME TERMS do NOT give anyone the right too be above THE ‘LAW.’” (Doc. 

No. 15 at 5) (emphasis and misspellings in original).

Case 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2