Marian Anthony v. Terrie E. Roberts, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior order that dismissed his complaint with prejudice. The court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to file the referenced evidence and was attempting to rehash previously rejected arguments regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and judicial immunity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, noting that the plaintiff did not present newly discovered evidence (the transcript was not actually filed) and was merely rehashing arguments previously rejected. The court also correctly noted that the specific transcript cited by the plaintiff was for a different date than the hearings at issue in the prior order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). It accurately notes the procedural failure (failure to file the transcript) and the substantive failure (rehashing arguments). The reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the standard for reconsideration is appropriate for this district.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 TERRIE E. ROBERTS, et al., [Doc. No. 27] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 59(e). [Doc. No. 27.] Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December 19 1, 2025 order, which, inter alia, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. [Doc. No. 20 25.] 21 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 22 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 23 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn 24 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Plaintiff argues reconsideration is warranted because he claims he has submitted the 26 official transcript of a September 29, 2025 state court hearing, which purportedly 27 “demonstrates a monumental list of civil rights violations by [Judge] Terrie Roberts[.]” 28 [See Doc. No. 27 at 3.] l To begin, it does not appear that Plaintiff has even filed the referenced official 2 ||transcript with the Court. It makes no difference, however, because Plaintiff still 3 || fundamentally seeks “to have a federal district court improperly interfere with an ongoing 4 proceeding.” [Doc. No. 25 at 4]; see S. California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 5 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars direct federal district court 6 || appellate review of state court judicial proceedings.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that the 7 ||Court committed clear error consists of the same, rehashed arguments such as that 8 || Defendants lack judicial immunity, and that Rooker-Feldman does not apply. [Compare 9 No. 21 at 4-6, with Doc. No. 27 at 4-5.] This is insufficient for a motion for 10 |/reconsideration. See Hardisty v. Moore, No. 11-CV-01591-BAS BLM, 2015 WL 11 6393857, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015) (“[A] Rule 59(e) motion does not give parties ‘a 12 second bite at the apple’ or permit them to rehash previously rejected arguments.”). 13 Plaintiff also argues that the Court should “reinstate” the state court hearing 14 transcripts which were struck from his complaint because he purportedly has filed a 15 || certified version. [Doc. No. 27 at 5.] Again, Plaintiff has not filed any official transcripts 16 || with the Court. Regardless, those transcripts which the Court struck purportedly related to 17 court hearings on January 24, April 30, and June 25, 2025. [Doc. No. 1-3 at 2, 29, 18 The official transcript which Plaintiff claims to have filed is for a September 29, 2025 19 || state court hearing and is thus irrelevant. [Doc. No. 27 at 4.] 20 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 9, 2026 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28