1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES I. McMILLAN, No. 2:20-cv-00564-JAM-JDP 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13 COUNTY OF SHASTA, a public entity, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is James I. McMillan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 17 for reconsideration of: (1) the Court’s February 1, 2021 Order 18 (“First Order”) at ECF No. 38 granting the Anderson Fire 19 Protection District and Fire Chief Steve Lowe’s (“Fire 20 Defendants”) motion to dismiss and the City of Anderson and 21 Anderson Police Officer Kameron Lee’s (“City Defendants”) motion 22 to dismiss; and (2) the Court’s October 25, 2021 Order at ECF 23 No. 55 (“Second Order”) granting the Fire and City Defendants’ 24 second motions to dismiss with prejudice. See Mot. for 25 Reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 59.1 The Fire Defendants 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for March 1, 2022. 1 opposed Plaintiff’s motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 62. Plaintiff 2 replied. See Reply, ECF No. 63. For the reasons set forth 3 below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 4 5 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 6 The Court does not repeat the factual background of this 7 case, which is set forth extensively in the operative complaint 8 and the Court’s prior orders. See e.g. First Order at 1-4. On 9 February 1, 2021, the Court granted Fire and City Defendants’ 10 first round of motions to dismiss. See generally First Order. 11 As relevant here, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first and sixth 12 claims with prejudice as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 13 477 (1994). Id. at 7-12. That dismissal is challenged by 14 Plaintiff in the present motion. Mot. at 2-5. 15 On May 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. 16 See Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), ECF No. 43. The Fire and 17 City Defendants again moved to dismiss. See Second Mot. to 18 Dismiss by Fire Defendants, ECF No. 45; Second Mot. to Dismiss by 19 City Defendants, ECF No. 46. The Court granted their motions 20 with prejudice. See generally Second Order. Plaintiff 21 challenges that Order in its entirety. Mot. at 5-9. 22 23 II. OPINION 24 The Fire Defendants first challenge Plaintiff’s failure to 25 identify the procedural grounds for his motion. Opp’n at 2. In 26 reply, Plaintiff clarifies he is seeking reconsideration under 27 Local Rule 230(j). Reply at 1. 28 /// 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly 2 provide for motions for reconsideration. But where 3 reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, a district court 4 has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” U.S. 5 v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation 6 omitted). “The authority of district courts to reconsider their 7 own orders before they become final, absent some applicable rule 8 or statute to the contrary, allows them to correct not only 9 simple mistakes, but also decisions based on shifting precedent, 10 rather than waiting for the time-consuming, costly process of 11 appeal.” Id. 12 The Eastern District Local Rules also permit motions for 13 reconsideration but require counsel to identify “the material 14 facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which 15 reconsideration is sought, including: (1) when and to what Judge 16 or Magistrate the prior motion was made; (2) what ruling, 17 decision, or order was made thereon; (3) what new or different 18 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 19 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 20 exist for the motion; and (4) why the facts or circumstances were 21 not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 22 230(j). “A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to 23 reargue the motion or present evidence which should have been 24 raised before.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 25 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations omitted). 26 Accordingly, the “party seeking reconsideration must show more 27 than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation 28 of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 1 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s 2 burden.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 3 Here, Plaintiff plainly fails to carry his burden to show 4 reconsideration of either of the Court’s prior orders is 5 warranted. Beginning with his challenge to the First Order – 6 specifically the Court’s dismissal with prejudice of the first 7 and sixth claims as barred under Heck – Plaintiff presents no 8 caselaw supporting his position that he may resurrect these 9 claims merely because the charges against him in Shasta County 10 Superior Court have now been dismissed. See Mot. at 2-5. In the 11 absence of such authority, the Court finds no reason to overturn 12 its prior decision. Plaintiff chose to proceed with these claims 13 in federal court prior to the dismissal of his state criminal 14 case and, as a result, ran into the Heck bar. See First Order at 15 8-12. While Plaintiff may now regret doing so, he has not 16 brought forward any authority permitting him to avoid the 17 consequences of this choice. 18 As for his challenge to the Second Order, Plaintiff has not 19 established that any “new facts or circumstances . . . which did 20 not exist at the time of the prior motion” are present. E.D. 21 Cal. Local R. 230(j) (emphasis added); see also Opp’n at 3-4. 22 Rather, Plaintiff simply recapitulates arguments the Court 23 previously considered and rejected. Mot. at 5-9; Reply at 2. 24 This too is insufficient to warrant reconsideration. See 25 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// nee enn meee ne nnn nnn no nn nnn ne ED EE

1 Til. ORDER 2 For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 3 Plaintiff’s request to add state law claims is likewise DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 1, 2022 Lh Ion 7 teiren staves odermacr 7008 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28