Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White denied reconsideration and reopening after dismissal for failure to state a claim, and denied a fee-waiver motion as moot.
Kenneth Kinnard’s case remained dismissed; his requests for reconsideration and reopening were denied, and his fee-waiver motion was denied as moot.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Kenneth Kinnard asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his case and reopen it. The court had dismissed the case without allowing another amendment after finding that his second amended complaint failed to state a claim.
Kinnard argued that the court had fundamentally misunderstood his complaint. The court found that he had not shown a manifest injustice, a change in controlling law, or newly discovered evidence that justified reconsideration or reopening.
Judge White denied both motions. The court also denied as moot Kinnard’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees, noting that it had previously approved that request.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- May 10, 2023
Background
Kenneth Kinnard moved for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this action and moved to reopen the case. On September 9, 2022, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), after finding that Kinnard’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim. Kinnard filed his motion for reconsideration on September 19, 2022, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, and filed his motion to reopen the case on October 11, 2022.
Kinnard later filed a notice of appeal. The Ninth Circuit held the appellate proceedings in abeyance while the district court resolved the pending motions.
Reconsideration standard
Rule 59(e) permits a court to reconsider a judgment in limited circumstances. The court stated that reconsideration may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or clear error or manifest injustice. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy used sparingly.
Kinnard argued that the court had fundamentally misunderstood his complaint. The court was not persuaded that reconsideration was warranted. It found that Kinnard had not shown that the dismissal, entered after he had several opportunities to plead his claims, was a manifest injustice. He also had not identified a change in controlling law or presented newly discovered evidence supporting reconsideration or reopening.
Rulings
The court denied Kinnard’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 and denied his motion to reopen the case.
The court also denied as moot Kinnard’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees. The court noted that it had previously found him qualified to proceed without paying those fees and had granted his application.
Disposition
The order leaves the earlier dismissal in place. This opinion itself addressed reconsideration, reopening, and the fee-waiver motion; it did not alter the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.