Legal help in USA for a Pro Se
Can you help me with my Pro Se case in the United States (( 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".))
Asked 10 months ago in Civil Law from United States
1) we need detailed facts of your case
2) it appears that you are appearing in person and have not engaged any lawyer
3) without knowing the facts we cannot say whether we can help you or not
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
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".
Asked 10 months ago
1) you have merely reproduced the case number . what are the facts of your case ?
Prior History: Gilliam v. Magistrado, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111884 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2015)
amend, motion for a new trial, motion to dismiss, domestic relations, entry of judgment, district court, clear error, parties, days
Counsel:  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
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,  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)  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
Asked 10 months ago
1)reasoned order has been passed by the judge rejecting your application .
2) application for amendment of judgement has been dismissed as you have failed to make out a case. amendment of judgement can be granted if new evidence has been discovered or order passed is erroneous
3) according to the learned judge motion to amend is futile as no new factual allegations that support reliefs sought for have been made out and no error of law committed
4) order has been passed by learned judge after granting personal haring to both the parties .
5) we do not find any infirmity in the order . dont file any appeal
In India the corresponding expression is 'in person'. I am an Indian lawyer, and thus not well versed with the US law. You should avail the services of a US based lawyer. It is clear that your motion to order a new trial has been dismissed by the court. As a corollary thereto, the only remedy could be an appeal under a statute or an extraordinary constitutional remedy before a constitutional court. A US based lawyer will be able to help you.