CAN YOU HELP ME WITH : (( IF I NEED HELP? ))
Gilliam v. Magistrado, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4973
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
January 13, 2016, Decided; January 14, 2016, Filed
No. 2:15-cv-1271-TLN-CKD-PS

I am Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person".

Prior History: Gilliam v. Magistrado, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111884 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2015)

Core Terms

amend, motion for a new trial, motion to dismiss, domestic relations, entry of judgment, district court, clear error, parties, days

Counsel:  [1] Jerry Gilliam, Plaintiff, Pro se, Kansas City, MO.

Debbie Sue Magistrado, Defendant, Pro se, Elk Grove, Ca.

Marsha A. McHugh, Defendant, Pro se, Sacramento, Ca.

James Robert Gilliam, Defendant, Pro se, Elk Grove, Ca.

For J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh, Defendant: Betsy S. Kimball, Gregory T Fayard, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Klinedinst Pc, Sacramento, CA.

Judges: Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge.

Opinion by: Troy L. Nunley

Opinion


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
On June 15, 2015, Jerry Gilliam ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against his siblings, Debbie Sue Magistrado, Marsha A. McHugh, and James Robert Gilliam, and his ex-wife's former attorney, J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh ("Defendants"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On July 10, 2015, Defendant J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) On August 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney held a motion hearing with all parties present. (ECF No. 18.) On August 24, 2015, Judge Delaney issued a Finding and Recommendation ("F&R"), advising that Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted and the case be closed.1Link to the text of the note (F&R, ECF No. 19.) On October 9, 2015, this Court, after careful consideration of the objections filed by the Plaintiff, [2]  adopted the F&R and ordered that the case be closed. (Order, ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for New Trial or Amendment of Judgment" pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 52 ("Rule 59", "Rule 52"). (ECF No. 32 at 1.) Defendant J. Christina Alvarez Aulakh filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial. (ECF No. 34.)

The relevant parts of Rules 59 and 52 are as follows:

Rule 59(e): Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

Rule 52(a)(6): Setting Aside the Findings. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.

Rule 52(b): Amended or Additional Findings. On a party's motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.

Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if "(1) [3]  the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2001)).

Plaintiff has shown no grounds for the relief he seeks. Plaintiff's motion reargues the same points he made in his complaint and objections to the F&R and contains no new factual allegations that could support relief under Rules 59(e) or Rule 52. No clear error of law was committed. The domestic relations exception applied by Magistrate Judge Delaney is current and clearly established federal law which applies to all of Plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, because no amendment to the Complaint could overcome the domestic relations exception, the Court properly denied Plaintiff's motion to amend as futile. Plaintiff has not met his burden and cannot be afforded relief. As such, Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

/s/ Troy L. Nunley

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge