Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Donahoe

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 10, 2015

WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER, VACATE JUDGMENT, AND DEMAND A JURY TRIAL [47]

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff William L. Scott's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Reconsider, Vacate Judgment, and Demand a Jury Trial [47] ("Motion") pursuant to Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its August 21, 2014, Order [40] granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Pl.'s Mot. ("Mot.") 1:1-26. Plaintiff also requests the Court to vacate the judgments in prior actions and to order new jury trials so that Plaintiff may re-litigate his claims. Id. at 1:1-26, 18:5-20; Reply 20:16-21:14.

The Court, having reviewed all papers submitted and pertaining to this Motion, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion [47].

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background[1]

Plaintiff initiated this Action on May 31, 2013, asserting claims of employment and disability discrimination against the United States of America and Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service ("USPS") (collectively, "Defendants"). First Amended Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 10; Nov. 14, 2013 Order, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Id. ¶ 1.

This Action "is at least Plaintiff's seventh attempt to bring employment or disability discrimination claims against the USPS, " with Plaintiff's first of such actions filed in 1992. Aug. 21, 2014 Order re: Granting Mot. for J. on Pleadings ("Order") 5:16-18, ECF No. 40; id. at 5:19-7:26 (discussing prior related actions). Judgment has been entered against Plaintiff in every prior action against USPS-related defendants save for one action that settled without a decision on the merits. Id. at 5:19-7:26.

In 2009, Plaintiff filed the first of a series of three cases[2] asserting violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. ("Rehabilitation Act"). In "Scott I, " the district court ruled on the merits and granted summary judgment for the defendant. Order 7:1-26. In "Scott II/III" ("Scott II" and "Scott III" were consolidated), the district court granted summary judgment in the defendants's favor based on res judicata. Id. The judgment in Scott II/III was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2013. Id.

In this Court's August 21, 2014 Order granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's ADA claims because the ADA precludes ADA suits against the United States and its agencies, thereby precluding Plaintiff's ADA claims against Defendants. Order 9:3-28, ECF No. 40. Plaintiff's remaining Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed with prejudice on the basis of res judicata, resulting in Plaintiff's entire Action being dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 10:1-18:15.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this Action on May 31, 2013 [1]. On August 21, 2014, the Court granted [40] Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [34] and dismissed this Action with prejudice. Order 19:18-20. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present Motion [47]. Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on November 3, 2014 [50]. Plaintiff filed his Reply on November 14, 2014 [51]. The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion was set for November 25, 2014 [48], and was taken under submission on November 21, 2014 [52].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mot. 1:20-21.

Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment previously entered upon motion of a party made within twenty-eight days of the entry of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

Rule 60(b) permits a court to, "on motion and just terms, " "relieve a party... from a final judgment, order, or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.