From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cowan v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2015
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG

07-13-2015

CHAD COWAN, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, JUDGE MAUREEN HALLAHAN, COMMISSIONER PENNIE MCLAUGHLIN, SDCSS LAWYER NATASHA ESSES, SDCSS LAWYER DIONNE MOCHON, SDCSS CASE MANAGER MIA-LEE CABRERA, TRAC PHAM, SAN DIEGO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 98]

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff Chad Cowan ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed an "Exparte Motion to Vacate Order and Judgments." (ECF No. 98.) The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 25, 2015, order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss, (ECF No. 95). Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, federal district courts may reconsider final orders to correct "manifest errors of law." Turner v. Burlington N. Sante Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, parties must show either: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) additional evidence that was not previously available; or (3) that the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice. Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989).

However, Plaintiff has shown none of these. Instead Plaintiff has erroneously referred to the Court's June 25 order as a "proposed order," (see, e.g., ECF No. 98, at 1, 4), and repeated the same incorrect arguments that this Court already rejected, (compare ECF No. 98, at 3-9 with ECF No. 95, at 4-5). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he "was forced in to [sic] signing the 'judgment' fraud was committed to obtain the signature of the plaintiff." (ECF No. 98, at 10.) As the Court previously noted, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support fraud. (See ECF No. 95, at 5.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 98).

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 13, 2015

/s/_________

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cowan v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2015
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Cowan v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:CHAD COWAN, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, JUDGE MAUREEN HALLAHAN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 13, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1886-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)