Mitchell v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Keshawn Fulton Mitchell brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims, against the County of Contra Costa and law-enforcement officers Thomas Brook and Kyle Emley. The claims arose from Mitchell’s February 2020 arrest. The opinion also refers to Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

The defendants previously moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, of Mitchell’s § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment. On November 14, 2022, the court denied that motion in its entirety.

Motion for Reconsideration

The defendants sought permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order. They argued that the court had failed to address Mitchell’s alleged failure to show that his prosecution resulted in a Fourth Amendment seizure. They cited cases supporting their argument that a person arrested without a warrant must allege a later deprivation of liberty amounting to a seizure to state a malicious-prosecution claim.

The court noted that none of those cases had been cited in the defendants’ earlier briefing, and none had been decided after the court denied the motion to dismiss. The court characterized the new motion as a reargument of the defendants’ original position, supplemented with authority that they could have presented earlier.

Ruling

Civil Local Rule 7-9 permits reconsideration of an interlocutory order—an order that does not finally resolve the entire case—only on narrow grounds, including a material difference in facts or law that could not previously have been known with reasonable diligence, newly emerging material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were previously presented. The rule does not permit a party to reargue matters previously raised or to obtain a second opportunity to present arguments that should have been made initially.

The court held that the defendants had not shown a manifest failure to consider material facts or legal arguments presented before the November 14, 2022 order. The court stated that the defendants could challenge Mitchell’s malicious-prosecution claim at the summary-judgment stage, using a full factual record and full briefing, including the newly cited cases.

The court denied the defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.