Opinion
NO. CIV. S-07-1086 FCD KJM PS.
January 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court has reviewed pro se plaintiff Barbara Clark's motion for reconsideration of this court's November 14, 2007 order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations of October 16, 2007 declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and HEREBY summarily DENIES plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff does not cite any authority, provide any evidence, or make any arguments that would justify granting the motion. Rather, plaintiff merely reargues her underlying opposition to defendants' motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Such argument is insufficient to grant reconsideration.See Blacklund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1985);Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656 (E.D. Cal. 1986). Morever, abundant grounds existed to make the vexatious litigant finding as set forth in the magistrate judge's October 16 order, and plaintiff did not file objections thereto. Contrary to plaintiff's instant assertions, there is simply no basis to find that the underlying vexatious litigant order was entered for an improper purpose. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); said Rule requires that any motion to alter or amend a judgment be filed no less than 10 days after entry of judgment. Plaintiff's motion, filed November 26, 2007, was not timely filed; however, the court has considered the motion nonetheless and denies it on the merits.
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).
IT IS SO ORDERED.