Anthony v. Roberts et al

1
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
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,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRIE E. ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. No. 27]
On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e). [Doc. No. 27.] Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December
1, 2025 order, which, inter alia, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. [Doc. No.
25.]
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff argues reconsideration is warranted because he claims he has submitted the
official transcript of a September 29, 2025 state court hearing, which purportedly
“demonstrates a monumental list of civil rights violations by [Judge] Terrie Roberts[.]”
[See Doc. No. 27 at 3.]
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 33 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
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
To begin, it does not appear that Plaintiff has even filed the referenced official
transcript with the Court. It 	makes no difference, however, because Plaintiff still
fundamentally seeks “to have a federal district court improperly interfere with an ongoing
state proceeding.” [Doc. No. 25 at 4]; see S. California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794,
804 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars direct federal district court
appellate review of state court judicial proceedings.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that the
Court committed clear error consists of the same, rehashed arguments such as that
Defendants lack judicial immunity, and that Rooker-Feldman does not apply. [Compare
Doc. No. 21 at 4–6, with 	Doc. No. 27 at 4–5.] 	This is insufficient for a motion for
reconsideration. 	See Hardisty v. Moore, No. 11-CV-01591-BAS BLM, 2015 WL
6393857, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015) (“[A] Rule 59(e) motion does not give parties ‘a
second bite at the apple’ or permit them to rehash previously rejected arguments.”).
Plaintiff also argues that the Court should “reinstate” the state court hearing
transcripts which were struck from his complaint because he purportedly has filed a
certified version. [Doc. No. 27 at 5.] Again, Plaintiff has not filed any official transcripts
with the Court. Regardless, those transcripts which the Court struck purportedly related to
state court hearings on January 24, April 30, and June 25, 2025. [Doc. No. 1-3 at 2, 29,
52.] The official transcript which Plaintiff claims to have filed is for a September 29, 2025
state court hearing and is thus irrelevant. [Doc. No. 27 at 4.]
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 33 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2