Jeffries v. FedEx et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
DONALD JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDEX,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM
ORDER DENYING (1) MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND
(2) MOTION FOR AN
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR
On May 23, 2024, the Court denied a motion for recusal of the undersigned
because it was both “absurd” and “frivolous.” 	Dkt. No. 81. 	Unhappy with that
decision, Plaintiff Donald Jeffries, proceeding without counsel, now moves for
reconsideration, as well as for the appointment of an “independent investigator” in
this case. 	Dkt. Nos. 85-86. 	The Court addresses both motions below.1
First, pursuant to Local Rule 60.1, a motion for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order, i.e., a non-dispositive order, such as the May 23, 2024 Order,
may be brought only upon the following three grounds: (1) discovery of new
material facts not previously available; (2) an intervening change in the law; or (3)
manifest error of law or fact.
1 In doing so, the Court liberally construes the pro se motions. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). 	However, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant or supply the
essential elements of a claim. 	Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of
Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Case 1:23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM Document 87 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 2
PageID.<pageID>

2
Here, Jeffries identifies no new material facts, intervening change in the law,
or manifest error of law or fact. 	Rather, he raises the same arguments presented in
the motion for recusal. 	See generally Dkt. No. 85. 	That is not a basis for
reconsideration. 	Further, so it is clear, the Court considered all of the arguments
made in the motion for recusal, whether specifically mentioned in the May 23,
2024 Order or not, and none warrant recusal in this matter.2 As a result, the
motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 85, is DENIED.
Second, Jeffries moves for appointment of an independent investigator,
seemingly to investigate “allegations of misconduct” against the assigned U.S.
Magistrate Judge. 	Dkt. No. 86. 	Jeffries, however, cites no legal authority for
such an appointment or investigation. 	Moreover, even if the same was authorized,
this case would not be the one in which to exercise that authority because Jeffries’
allegations of “misconduct” are baseless. 	As a result, the motion for an
independent investigator, Dkt. No. 86, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
2 This includes the January 5, 2024 hearing, at which the Court granted Jeffries leave to amend a
complaint that had spread over multiple documents in violation of at least Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and 15(a).
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM Document 87 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 2
PageID.<pageID>