Opinion
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DECLARING HER TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff Martha Jo Peters ("Peters") filed an "Equitable Motion to Void Ab Initio and to Vacate the Two Orders Declaring the Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Dismissing Her Complaints" ("Motion"). (Doc. No. 49.) The Motion is sixty-four pages, with exhibits, expressing Peters's dissatisfaction with being declared a vexatious litigant in state and federal court, and describing various alleged conspiracies - perpetrated by Rupert Murdoch, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and judicial officers of Riverside and San Bernardino Superior Courts - to deprive her of her rights.
Though Peters's Motion bears the case number "EDCV-13-1022-R(SPx), " because the Motion seeks reconsideration of the order declaring her to be a vexatious litigant, which was entered in the case number EDCV 13-01628-VAP (OPx), the Motion is properly before the undersigned.
In sum, the Motion again requests the Court reconsider its previous order declaring her to be a vexatious litigant. Moreover, she also requests the Court vacate an order of the California Superior Court declaring her to be a vexatious litigant.
The Court lacks the jurisdiction to do the latter and Peters has set forth no basis for it to do the former. The Court denied a similar motion for reconsideration of the vexatious litigant order on February 20, 2014. (Doc. No. 38.)
A motion for reconsideration must do two things. First, it must demonstrate some reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Courts have distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 649 (D. Haw. 1987) rev'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1988); In re Agric. Research & Tech. Grp., Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Motions for reconsideration may properly be denied where the motion fails to state new law or facts.").
While Peters's Motion does contain a lengthy assortment of new allegations, none of those facts are germane to the underlying action or her Motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion. The order declaring Peters to be a vexatious litigant remains in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED.