Hammerlord v. Elliott
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Hammerlord v. Elliott (2025-07-17) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior order that dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, intervening law, or clear error in the original dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration [Dkt. 4].” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration in the Ninth Circuit, which requires a showing of newly discovered evidence, intervening law, or clear error. The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Furthermore, the court correctly identified that the underlying dismissal was legally sound: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 do not provide a private right of action for civil damages, and a violation of the California Public Records Act does not constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment sufficient to support a § 1983 claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and substantively sound. It accurately states the high bar for reconsideration in the Ninth Circuit and correctly applies established law regarding the lack of a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 and the insufficiency of a state public records violation to state a federal constitutional claim under § 1983. The reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's arguments by confirming the legal errors in the original complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 M NORMAN HAMMERLORD, Case No.: 23cv663-JO-KSC 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION MARA W ELLIOTT, San Diego City 13 Attorney, and TODD GLORIA, San Diego City Mayor, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 On April 12, 2023, pro se Plaintiff M Norman Hammerlord filed a complaint 19 alleging that Defendants San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott and San Diego City Mayor 20 Todd Gloria refused to provide him with public records. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff also 21 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 2. On June 9, 2023, the Court 22 granted Plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed the complaint in full under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(e)(2). Dkt. 3. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 24 4. 25 The Court denies this request for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not identified 26 newly discovered evidence, intervening law, clear error, or manifest injustice. Sch. Dist. 27 No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) 28 (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 1 |}evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 2 ||there is an intervening change in controlling law.”). Plaintiff has identified no new 3 evidence or change in law and the arguments he raises do not convince the Court that it 4 ||committed clear error. The Court finds no clear error in its decision to dismiss □□□□□□□□□□ 5 claims under federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. A private plaintiff cannot 6 || sue under these statutes, even if he only seeks money damages. See Allen v. Gold Country 7 || Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 cannot 8 ||‘‘give rise to civil lability”). The Court also finds no clear error in its dismissal of 9 || Plaintiff's § 1983 claim which was based on a violation of the California Public Records 10 |}Act. Whether intentional or unintentional, a violation of this state statute cannot support a 11 claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Rouse v. Pitkin, 2022 WL 834956, at 12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for 13 reconsideration [Dkt. 4]. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: August 8, 2023 18 19 20 21 “Tinsook Ohta 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28