Anthony v. Sanchez et al

1
3:25-cv-1548-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.
FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, in his
Individual and Official Capacity as
Hearing Officer, Superior Court of
California; EMILY BRAY, in her
individual capacity,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-1548-CAB-AHG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. No. 49]
On November 17, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Marian Anthony’s complaint
with prejudice. [Doc. No. 47.] The Court found Anthony’s claims were conclusory and
that he sought for this Court to improperly interfere with state court family law decisions
and proceedings. [Id. at 2–5.] Anthony now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(2). 	[Doc. No. 49.] 	Anthony argues
reconsideration is warranted because the San Diego Superior Court has since released
certified transcripts of June 4, 2025, and September 29, 2025 hearings, which allegedly
show, inter alia, that Defendant Judge Sanchez and opposing counsel Defendant Bray
conspired against Anthony. 	[Id. at 2.] 	Anthony further argues that the fact that these
Case 3:25-cv-01548-CAB-AHG Document 52 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-1548-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
transcripts were released on the same day that this Court dismissed his case shows that
there is “coordinated suppression of evidence . . . that directly proves the § 1983 and RICO
conspiracy alleged in the complaint.” [Id. at 3.]
“A motion for reconsideration may be brought under Federal Rules of Civil
[P]rocedure 59(e) or 60(b).” 	Wilson v. Segovia, No. 19-CV-2254-TWR-MDD, 2020 WL
6685026, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020). Rule 59(e) allows a court to amend a judgment
where newly discovered evidence is presented, the court committed clear error, or there is
an intervening change in controlling law. 	See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 	Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment upon a
showing of:
(1) 	mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	or 	excusable 	neglect; 	(2) 	newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether 	previously 	called 	intrinsic 	or 	extrinsic), 	misrepresentation, 	or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Under either standard, Anthony fails to carry his burden. He argues that the certified
transcripts contain “the very evidence that would have defeated the motion to dismiss.”
[Doc. No. 49 at 5.] The transcripts, however, do not constitute newly discovered evidence
given that Anthony was present at the hearing; the facts that form the basis of his claim
were known to him at the time or could have been discovered through reasonable diligence.
See Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 580 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, the transcripts
do not change the Court’s previous findings that (1) Defendant Sanchez has absolute
judicial immunity, (2) Anthony improperly seeks to void state court decisions and stay
Case 3:25-cv-01548-CAB-AHG Document 52 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-1548-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
court proceedings, and (3) Anthony fails to state a claim against Defendant Bray.1 [Doc.
No. 47 at 3–5.] 	Anthony also lists other bases for reconsideration, including fraud and
extraordinary circumstances, yet he does not provide any reasoning as to why they apply.
Thus, 	the 	Court 	finds 	Anthony 	fails 	to 	carry 	his 	burden 	of 	demonstrating 	that
reconsideration is proper. The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
Anthony also seeks leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court previously
dismissed his first amended complaint with prejudice, [Doc. No. 47 at 6], which means he
cannot bring this action in federal court again. See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., No. 221-
CV-06903-JAK-SHK, 2023 WL 3549719, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2023) (“Dismissal
‘with prejudice’ means that Plaintiff will not be able to bring this action in federal court
again[.]”). The Court DENIES Anthony’s request for leave.
The Court of Clerk is instructed to STRIKE any additional filings by Anthony.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
1 The Court also notes that Anthony does not explain how, or where exactly, the transcripts show what
he claims. He merely filed 196 pages of exhibits, presumably for the Court to sift through and make
sense of. [Doc. No. 5.]
Case 3:25-cv-01548-CAB-AHG Document 52 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3