Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

(PS) Brown v. Jewell, 2:16-cv-00637-MCE-CKD-PS. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180105667 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff Marilee Brown, proceeding in pro se ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action on grounds that she was subject to retaliation arising out of her employment and subsequent removal as a criminal investigator for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). She sues both Sally Jewell, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the USFWS (collectively referred to as "the Federal Defendants"). The Federal Defendants move
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Marilee Brown, proceeding in pro se ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action on grounds that she was subject to retaliation arising out of her employment and subsequent removal as a criminal investigator for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). She sues both Sally Jewell, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the USFWS (collectively referred to as "the Federal Defendants").

The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on grounds that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claim for retaliation. By Findings and Recommendations filed on February 28, 2017 (ECF No. 33), the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that the Federal Defendants' Motion be granted. Thereafter, on March 23, 2017, the undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations and dismissed Plaintiff's case without leave to amend. (ECF No. 36)

On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration purporting to include further supporting arguments (ECF No. 39).

Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff's instant request fails to meet that standard. Despite claiming otherwise, Plaintiff provides no new or different facts or circumstances indicating that reconsideration is appropriate. Nor does Plaintiff do more than rehash the same legal issues that have already been decided against him. Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer