(PS) Wooten v. Trump

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT WOOTEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
No. 2:25-cv-00873-DC-AC (PS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. No. 24)
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s
June 24, 20251 order adopting the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and
closing this case. (Doc. Nos. 17, 24.)
In his pending motion, Plaintiff invokes Rules 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which applies after judgment has been entered and provides that “[a] motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). “A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under [Rule] 59(e).” Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019,
1019 (9th Cir. 1983). A motion for reconsideration filed outside that time period is treated as a
Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order, which “must be made within a reasonable
1 The court’s June 24, 2025 order was entered on the docket on June 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 17.)
Case 2:25-cv-00873-DC-AC Document 25 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

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
2
time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c); Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016).
“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). A motion for reconsideration does not, however, give the
moving party a “second bite at the apple.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted).
In addition, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that in moving for reconsideration
of an order denying or granting a prior motion, a party must show “what new or different facts or
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what
other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the
time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. L.R. 230(j).
Here, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not identify any basis that warrants
reconsideration of the court’s June 24, 2025 order. Rather, Plaintiff reiterates his grievances
against Defendant Trump. (Doc. No. 24.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
Accordingly,
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED; and
2. This case shall remain closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 31, 2025	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00873-DC-AC Document 25 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2