ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, 127

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson, who is litigating this action pro se, has asked the Court for various relief in several motions. See Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, and 127. These motions are appropriate for disposition without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

I. Motion Requesting To Have Security Personnel Removed From the Courtroom

Mr. Johnson asks that the Court remove the "federal police with there [sic] guns from the courtroom" as "there presents [sic] shows a prejudgment on the part of the Court." Dkt. No. 120 at 2. The request is frivolous and is denied. U.S. Marshal and Courtroom Security Officer personnel are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of federal courtrooms and courthouses. Their presence is routine. Mr. Johnson has not proffered any facts or identified any reason that even remotely supports his request. This is not an invitation for additional briefing on this issue, and the Court instructs Mr. Johnson not to submit any more motions, requests for reconsideration or any other briefing on this issue.

II. Motion Regarding Reconsideration

Mr. Johnson seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order dated June 12, 2014, (Dkt. No. 118), under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a). Dkt. No. 121. That order denied Mr. Johnson's prior request for reconsideration. See Dkt. No. 118. Reconsideration is denied. Id.

To obtain reconsideration, the moving party must show: (1) "a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought;" (2) "[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order;" or (3) "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

Mr. Johnson does not satisfy any of these threshold showings. He does not point to a subsequent change in fact or law, or a failure by the Court to consider facts or arguments previously presented. While Mr. Johnson disagrees with the Court's ruling on the United States and the City and County of San Francisco's motions to dismiss, a motion for reconsideration may not be brought "merely because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment . . . or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision." Bridgeman v. Peralta, No. 11-2132 WQH, 2011 WL 5830427, at *1 (S.D. Nov. 18, 2011). The Court directs Mr. Johnson not to file any further briefs or submissions on this issue.

III. Motion To Deny Deposition

Mr. Johnson asks that the Court "deny" defendant the United States' notice to depose him. Dkt. No. 127. The request is denied. The Court reminds Mr. Johnson that his filings must comply with this Court's standing orders. The Court's Standing Order for Discovery In Civil Cases provides that all discovery disputes — which includes any disputes about depositions — must be raised with the Court in a letter no longer than three pages, which may be filed only after the parties have met and conferred in person. Mr. Johnson must comply with the Court's standing orders while appearing pro se.

The United States is entitled under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to take Mr. Johnson's deposition, so the motion is denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Under Civil Local Rule 30-1, the United States must "confer about the scheduling of the deposition with opposing counsel or, if the party is pro se, the party." The Court's Standing Order imposes the same obligation. The Court expects the United States to confer with Mr. Johnson to determine a date for his deposition that comports with his recovery from surgery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.