KENT G. LEHMAN v. THE UNITED STATES, PAMELA BONDI, and JESSE HART
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for relief from judgment and a motion to order a grand jury presentation filed by a pro se plaintiff after his case was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion for relief from judgment as failing to meet the standards for Rule 60(b) relief and denied the grand jury motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 19) denied“Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the grounds for relief under FRCP 60(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 19.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was filed more than 28 days after judgment, converting it to a Rule 60(b) motion. It correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in law, or clear error/manifest injustice. The court found the plaintiff merely restated previous arguments, which is insufficient for Rule 60(b) relief. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the recited record. |
Motion for order to petition the U.S. Attorney to present to a Grand Jury (ECF No. 20) denied as moot“Further, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's motion for order to petition the U.S. Attorney General Central District to present to a Grand Jury. ECF No. 20.” | unsure The court denied this motion as moot without providing specific reasoning for why it was moot, other than the context that the case was closed. While the reasoning is sparse, denying a motion for specific relief in a closed case where the underlying claims have been dismissed is a defensible procedural outcome, though the lack of explanation is a gap. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly applies the procedural rules for converting a late Rule 59(e) motion to a Rule 60(b) motion and correctly applies the substantive standards for Rule 60(b) relief as defined by Ninth Circuit precedent. The court's finding that the plaintiff merely restated prior arguments is sufficient to deny the motion. The denial of the second motion as moot is procedurally sound but lacks explanatory detail.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KENT G. LEHMAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02224-JES-DDL 13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 v. (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 15 THE UNITED STATES, PAMELA RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; and BONDI, and JESSE HART, 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 17 ORDER TO PETITION THE U.S. 18 ATTORNEY TO PRESENT TO A GRAND JURY AS MOOT 19 20 [ECF Nos. 19, 20] 21 22 On November 21, 2025, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to screening under 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 12. On December 30, 2025, 24 Plaintiff Kent Lehman (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 25 15. On April 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. ECF No. 18. On April 21, 26 2026, Plaintiff filed two motions; a motion for relief from judgment/default due to 27 retaliation, interference and obstruction including violations of the First Amendment (ECF 28 1 No. 19); and a motion for order to petition the U.S. Attorney General Central District to 2 present to a Grand Jury (ECF No. 20). 3 When a court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for 4 reconsideration may be based either on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 59(e) or 5 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 6 1993). “A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the 7 entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). If a motion for reconsideration is filed more 8 than 28 days after entry of judgment, then “it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief 9 from a judgment or order.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 10 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the motion was filed more than 28 days after entry of 11 judgment. 12 Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 13 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 14 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 15 identified three grounds for reconsideration: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an 16 intervening change in controlling law; or (3) to correct clear error in the prior decision or 17 as a result of manifest injustice. Mustafa v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1179 18 (9th Cir. 1998). Where a motion for reconsideration claims the district court clearly erred, 19 “[m]ere doubts or disagreement about the wisdom of a prior decision … will not suffice 20 …. To be clearly erroneous, a decision must [be] more than just maybe or probably wrong; 21 it must be dead wrong.” Mazgaj v. Charles, No. 3:24-cv-00777-JAH-MSB, 2025 WL 22 905521, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025) (internal citation omitted). 23 In his motion, Plaintiff has not identified any newly discovered evidence, an 24 intervening change in the law, or any clear error or manifest injustice that would result if 25 the Court does not reconsider its decision. See generally ECF No. 19. Instead, Plaintiff 26 restates his previous argument in support for a preliminary injunction. Cf. ECF No. 19 with 27 ECF Nos. 3, 4, 10. Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the grounds for relief under 28 FRCP 60(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 19. 1 Further, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's motion for order to petition the U.S. 2 || Attorney General Central District to present to a Grand Jury. ECF No. 20. The case remains 3 || closed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 25, 2026 = a en 4, 7 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28