(PS) McDaniel v. Powell, et al., No. 2:2013cv02653 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/28/15 ORDERING the 65 motion STRICKEN. Plaintiff is informed that the district judge will consider the availability of amendment in ruling on the Findings and Recommendations regarding defendants' motion to dismiss. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) McDaniel v. Powell, et al. Doc. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANYA MCDANIEL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-02653-MCE-AC v. ORDER DANIEL POWELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 24, 17 18 2015, plaintiff filed a declaration and “Motion for Judgment,” requesting that the court enter 19 judgment against defendants. ECF No. 65. This motion is not one contemplated by the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the undersigned’s June 5, 2015 order (ECF No. 21 22 61) denying her motion to amend (ECF No. 58), and/or the undersigned’s June 16, 2015 order 23 (ECF No. 64) denying her motion for reconsideration of the June 5 order (ECF No. 63). The 24 issue of further amendment of the complaint is addressed substantively in the Findings and 25 Recommendations issued on June 4, 2015, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be 26 granted. ECF No. 60. Petitioner has objected to the Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 27 62, and the district judge has not yet ruled. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In her most recent filing, plaintiff re-asserts arguments she made in her motion for 2 reconsideration of the court’s order denying leave to amend. See ECF No. 63. Specifically, 3 plaintiff asserts she was misled by a court clerk, who told her not to attach her proposed amended 4 complaint to her motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 65 at 2. In addition, plaintiff argues that 5 the undersigned generally failed to consider the arguments included in her first motion for 6 reconsideration. ECF No. 65 at 3. The court previously addressed these arguments in its order 7 denying plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 64. Plaintiff’s motion does not 8 include new facts or other grounds that would merit the reconsideration of defendants’ motion to 9 dismiss. See Local Rule 230(j); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. 10 California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Moreover, even if plaintiff had 11 presented a cognizable basis for reconsideration, that would not entitle her to entry of judgment 12 against the defendants. 13 Because the motion filed at ECF No. 65 seeks relief not authorized by the rules or by 14 applicable law, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS the motion STRICKEN. Plaintiff is informed 15 that the district judge will consider the availability of amendment in ruling on the Findings and 16 Recommendations regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss. 17 DATED: July 28, 2015 18 ___________/S/ Allison Claire__________ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.