From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whittington v. Deines

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 5, 2022
21cv1224-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022)

Opinion

21cv1224-LL-JLB

04-05-2022

JOHN JOSEPH WHITTINGTON, JR., Plaintiff v. LISA DEINES; JENNIFER ROSE; et al., Defendants


ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF NO. 34]

HONORABLE LINDA LOPEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, moves for reconsideration of Judge Sabraw's order dismissing this case with prejudice. ECF No. 34. The case was subsequently transferred to the below signed district judge. ECF No. 37. Petitioner also styles his filing as a second amended complaint. For the below reasons, the Petition is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner's initial 70-page Complaint named two alleged employees of the County of San Diego's Child Welfare Services. Petitioner alleged they removed his son from the custody of his mother pursuant to a protective custody warrant issued by the state court. In liberally construing the Complaint, Judge Sabraw interpreted Petitioner's claim as one arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a subsequent 224-page First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Petitioner alleged the same or similar claims, and added as Defendants two social workers allegedly employed by the County, an attorney at Children's Legal Services of San Diego, and two state court judges who presided over the juvenile court proceedings or who issued the protective custody warrant. In response to the FAC, multiple Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Petitioner did not file a traditional opposition to any of the motions, but he did file an “Affidavit of Truth” and a “Declaration of John of the Whittington Family, ” followed by an “Affidavit of Truth and Facts by John Joseph Whittington in support of a default judgement.” ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21.

In their motions to dismiss, Defendants raised a number of arguments that Judge Sabraw found could potentially justify dismissal of this case, ranging from judicial immunity to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 32. First and foremost, Judge Sabraw found that Petitioner failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a claim for relief contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[, ]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation in a pleading “be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Judge Sabraw found that Petitioner's 224-page FAC satisfied neither of those requirements, noting that the FAC was comprised of a variety of apparently separate documents, including: (1) a “Notice of Special Divine Appearance Status Standing Dominion, ” which cited biblical verses; (2) another “Affidavit of Truth and Fact;” (3) a “Notice: To Any Available Federal Prosecutor: 90 Days Decision to Prosecute, ” which consisted of printouts of various government web pages; (4) a 32-page “Affidavit of Truth and Assertory Oath, Repudiation and Revocation of Citizenship;” and (5) “Arrest Warrants” for Defendants Rose and Deines. Id. at 2-3. Judge Sabraw also noted that Petitioner's FAC contained terminology suggesting Petitioner subscribed to the “sovereign citizen” ideology, which had been uniformly rejected by courts across the county. Id. at 4. Finally, Judge Sabraw found Petitioner's claims to be frivolous, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Consequently, reconsideration is appropriate in only limited circumstances, such as where “the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(1) (requiring any party moving for reconsideration “to present to the judge . . . . an affidavit . . . . setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application”).

III. DISCUSSION

In support of his filing, Petitioner does not attempt to present newly discovered evidence to show that Judge Sabraw committed clear error or that his decision was manifestly unjust, nor does he argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Petitioner requests that this Court accept his filing as a second amended complaint, which he argues is simple, clear, and concise. ECF No. 34. However, Judge Sabraw's order dismissed this case with prejudice. ECF No. 32 at 4. Accordingly, and construing Petitioner's pro se filings liberally, Petitioner has not met his burden of showing grounds for reconsideration of Judge Sabraw's order [ECF No. 32] dismissing his case with prejudice. Accordingly, the Petition [ECF No. 34] is DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Whittington v. Deines

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 5, 2022
21cv1224-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Whittington v. Deines

Case Details

Full title:JOHN JOSEPH WHITTINGTON, JR., Plaintiff v. LISA DEINES; JENNIFER ROSE; et…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Apr 5, 2022

Citations

21cv1224-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022)