United States District Court, S.D. California
JOHN B. KENNEY, Plaintiff,
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matters before the Court are (1) the Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 85, 97); (2) the Motions to Supplement the First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 109); and (3) the Motions to Dismiss, filed by numerous Defendants (ECF Nos. 93, 107, 110, 119, 120).
On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff John B. Kenney, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On September 20, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, William Lansdowne, Jerry Sanders, Scott Thompson, Kaseyelee Lawrence, David Stum, and Jan Goldsmith (collectively, "City Defendants"). (ECF No. 20). In the same Order, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the San Diego Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department"). Id.
On October 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 21). On January 28, 2014, the Court granted the motions to dismiss portions of the First Amended Complaint filed by the City Defendants and the Sheriff's Department. (ECF No. 33). In the January 28, 2014 Order, the Court listed the nine causes of action against various City Defendants which were not dismissed. See id. at 22-23. The Court presumes familiarity with the January 28, 2014 Order and the other orders and filings in this action.
II. Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the rulings in the January 28, 2014 Order which were adverse to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 85). Plaintiff contends that he adequately pled each of his asserted causes of action against each of the moving Defendants, and the Court erred in dismissing certain claims against certain Defendants and striking certain allegations. Plaintiff alternatively requests leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also requests that "the Court excuse itself for obvious bias." Id. at 19. In a separate motion, Plaintiff filed exhibits in support of the Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 97).
The City Defendants filed oppositions to the Motion for Reconsideration, and Plaintiff filed replies. (ECF Nos. 88, 96, 100, 105).
A. Request for Reconsideration
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters. Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). "[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 Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
After review of the Motion for Reconsideration and the prior orders issued in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence, does not establish that the Court committed clear error, and does not establish an intervening change in the law. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
B. Request for Recusal
"The standard for recusal... is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted). "To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source." Id. (citation omitted). "[A] judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal." Id. (quotation omitted).
Plaintiff requests that the Court recuse on the grounds that the Court's prior rulings in this case and a prior case were adverse to him. Plaintiff has not alleged judicial bias from an extrajudicial source. Plaintiff's ...