Anthony et al v. County of San Diego et al

1
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE
JOHANESEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF DECEMBER 3, 2025 ORDERS
[ECF No. 46]
The Court entered two Orders on December 3, 2025 (“December 3 Orders”). (See
ECF Nos. 43, 44.) Plaintiffs now object to the Orders under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a). (See Mot., ECF No. 46.) In an abundance of caution, the Court construes
Plaintiffs’ “objections” as a motion for reconsideration under Rules 72(a) and 59(e).1
Under Rule 72(a), a district court judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling
on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
1 It appears Plaintiffs challenge only some of the rulings in the December 3 Orders. (See Mot. 2.) In an
abundance of caution, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of all rulings across both
Orders. Plaintiffs also erroneously request reconsideration of rulings not at issue in these Orders (for
example, “recusal of Judge Dana M. Sabraw” and “reconsideration of the October 8, 2025 Order”). (Id.)
Further, the Court already considered and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal of the undersigned and
motion to reconsider the Court’s Order entered on October 8, 2025. (See ECF No. 52.)
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 53 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, the December 3 Orders were entered by the undersigned—a district court judge. Rule
72(a) does not provide for review of a district judge’s ruling. Thus, this argument is
procedurally improper.
A motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to amend judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).2 See In re Arrowhead Estates Development
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the
initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993). “Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.”
Smith v. Shartle, No. CV-18-00323, 2019 WL 5653444, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2019)
(citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in
the litigation.” Id. (citation omitted). “Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any
argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion.” Id. (citation
omitted). Here, Plaintiffs repeat many of the same arguments already raised in their
previous motions, contending the Court overlooked or disregarded Plaintiffs’ evidence.
Not so. Rather, the Court considered these arguments when entering the December 3
Orders, but found none to be persuasive. A motion for reconsideration need not be granted
if it asks the district court merely “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through
– rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiffs raise no additional,
compelling reasons why the Court should amend its December 3 Orders.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration of the December 3 Orders. Plaintiffs also request leave to amend their
2 Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for reconsideration. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Under Local Rule
7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for
any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Id.
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 53 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint and early discovery. (Mot., Prayer for Relief.) The Court has previously ruled
on these requests, (ECF No. 52), and therefore DENIES both requests as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 53 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3