Marian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) based on newly discovered body-worn camera transcripts and made several miscellaneous requests including a stay, in-camera review, and leave to amend. The Court denied the motion to amend judgment and denied all miscellaneous requests.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Judgment under Rule 59(e)“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, requiring newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to explain how the body-worn camera transcripts warranted reconsideration of the specific order denying recusal, and failed to connect the evidence to any other orders. The court also correctly noted that a judge is not required to refer a recusal motion to another judge if the motion is legally insufficient. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
Denial of Request for Stay of Proceedings“The Court will determine whether a stay is warranted if Plaintiffs file an appeal; at this juncture, the request is denied.” | agree with court The court denied the stay because no appeal had been filed yet. This is a standard procedural ruling; a stay is typically considered in the context of an actual appeal or specific circumstances justifying it. The court reserved the right to decide later if an appeal is filed. |
Denial of Request for In-Camera Review“The Court also finds in-camera review is unnecessary at this time.” | agree with court The court denied the request because plaintiffs provided no legal basis for it and the court found it unnecessary. Without a specific legal argument or showing of why in-camera review was required (e.g., privilege, sensitive nature), the denial is procedurally sound. |
Denial of Request for Leave to Amend as Moot“Thus, this request is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court noted that it had already granted leave to amend and that plaintiffs had filed a Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, the request for leave to amend was moot. This is a correct procedural determination. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the standard for Rule 59(e) motions and applies it to the facts presented. It correctly addresses the plaintiffs' argument regarding the referral of the recusal motion by citing relevant authority. It properly handles the miscellaneous requests by denying them based on procedural grounds (no appeal filed, no legal basis, mootness). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural nature of the motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE 11 JOHANESEN, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT; v. DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 Defendants. [ECF No. 57] 15 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 59(e). (Mot., ECF No. 57.) Specifically, Plaintiffs move to amend “the Court’s 19 recent order denying recusal and other relief.” (Id. at 2.) 20 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 21 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 22 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 23 County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs argue 24 amendment of judgment is warranted “based on the newly discovered evidence from body- 25 worn camera . . . transcripts.” (Mot. 2.) Plaintiffs reference the Order “denying recusal 26 and other relief,” (id.), but do not otherwise specify which Order they are challenging. 27 28 1 || Indeed, this Court and the Magistrate Court recently entered several Orders on a multitude 2 || of Plaintiffs’ motions and requests. (See ECF Nos. 52-54.) 3 As to the Order denying recusal of the undersigned judge, Plaintiffs fail to explain 4 || why body-worn camera transcripts warrant reconsideration. Thus, the “newly discovered 5 || evidence” is not a sufficient basis to amend judgment. Plaintiffs also incorrectly argue that 6 ||a third-party arbiter was required to decide the motion for recusal. (See Mot. 3.) “A 7 ||challenged judge is not required to refer the motion to another judge under [28 U.S.C. § 8 || 144], if the motion and supporting affidavit are legally insufficient to establish grounds for 9 ||recusal,” Abera v. San Diego PacificVu LLC, No. 25-CV-01488-RBM-DEB, 2026 WL 10 280082, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026) (citation modified), and Plaintiffs’ argument for 11 |/recusal was insufficient. (See ECF No. 52, at 4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to explain 12 the body-worn camera transcripts warrant reconsideration of any other previous 13 Orders or why reconsideration is otherwise justified. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 14 || Plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment. 15 The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ miscellaneous requests contained in the filing. 16 || First, Plaintiffs request a stay of these proceedings because they are “inclined to appeal the 17 || denial of injunctive relief.” (Mot. 3.) The Court will determine whether a stay is warranted 18 |/if Plaintiffs file an appeal; at this juncture, the request is denied. Next, Plaintiffs ask for an 19 |/in-camera review of the “newly discovered evidence,” but provide no legal basis for this 20 ||request. (/d. at 4.) The Court also finds in-camera review is unnecessary at this time. 21 || Lastly, Plaintiffs request leave to amend. (/d.) The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to 22 ||amend, (see ECF Nos. 65, 66), and they have filed a Second Amended Complaint, (see 23 || ECF No. 70). Thus, this request is denied as moot. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: April 9, 2026 2» 26 2 mam Sood Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 27 United States District Judge 28