(PS) Mitchell v. Brown, et al, No. 2:2014cv02993 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/14/16 recommending that 45 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION be DENIED. F&R referred to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one days. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Mitchell v. Brown, et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK L. MITCHELL, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:14-cv-2993 MCE AC Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KAMALA D. HARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA; and JAMES C. SANCHEZ, CITY ATTORNEY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment entered against him on April 21, 2016. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, acting in pro se, filed his original complaint on December 29, 2014 (ECF No. 1) 23 and a First Amended Complaint on September 3, 2015 (ECF No. 24). He claimed that the 24 application to him of the Sex Offender Registration Act, Cal. Penal Code § 290.46 (“Megan’s 25 Law,”) violated the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, because he 26 had been tried and convicted years before the law’s enactment. ECF No. 1. Citing the potential 27 for violence against him by members of the public, who may gain internet access to his name and 28 address under provisions of the statute, plaintiff sought injunctive relief. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on January 11, 2015. ECF No. 31. 2 Following responsive briefing and oral argument, the First Amended Complaint was ultimately 3 dismissed on the merits of the Ex Post Facto claim, without further leave to amend, on April 21, 4 2015. ECF Nos. 38 (Findings and Recommendations), 43 (Order adopting Findings and 5 Recommendations). ECF No. 43. Judgment was entered against plaintiff on the same day, and 6 this case was closed. ECF No. 44. 7 By the present motion, plaintiff timely seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing his 8 case, and relief from the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 ECF No. 45. 10 LEGAL STANDARDS 11 Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits the court to alter or amend a 12 judgment. “Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the 13 district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.” McDowell v. 14 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 15 16 17 18 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. 19 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 20 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1082 (2000)). 21 However, “amending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy which should be 22 used sparingly.” Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111 (internal quotation marks omitted). Amendment of 23 judgment is sparingly used to serve the dual “interests of finality and conservation of judicial 24 resources.” See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiff seeks amendment of the judgment in light of what he characterizes as “newly 27 discovered evidence” regarding the impact of Megan’s Law. ECF No. 45 at 1. The judgment 28 was based on the court’s conclusion that petitioner had not established, and could not establish, 2 1 that Megan’s Law constituted a punishment subject to challenge under the Ex Post Facto Clause. 2 More specifically, the court found that there was evidence of neither punitive legislative intent 3 nor punitive practical effect. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff now points to his discovery of a March 4, 4 2013 Sacramento County criminal case, in which two defendants were convicted of murdering a 5 sex offender they identified through Megan’s List. 6 The information on which plaintiff relies does not constitute “newly discovered evidence” 7 within the meaning of Rule 59. “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or 8 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 9 litigation.” Kona Enterprises, 229 F.3d at 890 (emphasis in original). 10 Plaintiff’s newly presented evidence involves a case from 2013. There is no reason to 11 believe that this information was unavailable during the pendency of the case and could not have 12 been raised earlier. Although plaintiff may not have been personally aware of the case, it could 13 have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence and presented in the original 14 complaint in December 2014, in the amended complaint in April 2015, or in opposition to the 15 motion to dismiss in February 2016. See Far Out Products, Inc. v, Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 998 (9th 16 Cir. 2001) (to prevail under Rule 59(e) on grounds of newly discovered evidence, movant must 17 have exercised due diligence to discover the evidence during litigation). Because this information 18 was not previously unavailable, it does not support relief under Rule 59(e). 19 Moreover, the newly presented facts would not require a different result. To compel relief 20 under Rule 59(e), new evidence must be “of such magnitude that it would likely have changed the 21 outcome of the case.” Far Out Products, 247 F.3d at 998. The victimization by vigilantes of a 22 single registered sex offender, while certainly illustrative of plaintiff’s legitimate concerns, does 23 not establish that the statute itself has a punitive effect within the meaning of Ex Post Facto 24 jurisprudence. 25 For these reasons, and in light of the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 26 resources, plaintiff’s belated presentation of facts does not warrant reconsideration of the 27 judgment. 28 //// 3 1 2 3 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time 9 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 159 F.3d 449, 455 10 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157-1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: November 14, 2016 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
