Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01271-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh
Defendant
Jerry Gilliam
Plaintiff
James Robert Gilliam
Defendant
Debbie Sue Magistrado
Defendant
Marsha A. McHugh
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY GILLIAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBBIE SUE MAGISTRADO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1271-TLN-CKD-PS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

On June 15, 2015, Jerry Gilliam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action

against his siblings, Debbie Sue Magistrado, Marsha A. McHugh, and James Robert Gilliam, and 

his ex-wife’s former attorney, J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh (“Defendants”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 

On July 10, 2015, Defendant J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) 

On August 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney held a motion hearing with all parties

present. (ECF No. 18.) On August 24, 2015, Judge Delaney issued a Finding and 

Recommendation (“F&R”), advising that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted and 

the case be closed.

1

 (F&R, ECF No. 19.) On October 9, 2015, this Court, after careful 

consideration of the objections filed by the Plaintiff, adopted the F&R and ordered that the case 

be closed. (Order, ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for New Trial or Amendment of 

Judgment” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 52 (“Rule 59”, “Rule 52”). (ECF 

 

1

The court construed the appearance and argument at the hearing by the remaining defendants to 

be a joinder in the motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:15-cv-01271-TLN-CKD Document 36 Filed 01/14/16 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

No. 32 at 1.) Defendant J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

New Trial. (ECF No. 34.)

The relevant parts of Rules 59 and 52 are as follows:

Rule 59(e): Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to 

alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after 

the entry of the judgment.

Rule 52(a)(6): Setting Aside the Findings. Findings of fact, whether 

based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly 

erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial 

court's opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.

Rule 52(b): Amended or Additional Findings. On a party's motion 

filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court 

may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may 

amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a 

motion for a new trial under Rule 59.

Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if “(1) the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 

law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2001)).

Plaintiff has shown no grounds for the relief he seeks. Plaintiff’s motion reargues the 

same points he made in his complaint and objections to the F&R and contains no new factual 

allegations that could support relief under Rules 59(e) or Rule 52. No clear error of law was 

committed. The domestic relations exception applied by Magistrate Judge Delaney is current and 

clearly established federal law which applies to all of Plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, because no 

amendment to the Complaint could overcome the domestic relations exception, the Court 

properly denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend as futile. Plaintiff has not met his burden and cannot 

be afforded relief. As such, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01271-TLN-CKD Document 36 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 2