GARCIA v. City of Santa Ana, a public entity; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-28No. No. 20-55414

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order denying Escamilla's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration because he failed to establish any basis for relief, and the court rejected his jurisdictional and tolling arguments as meritless.

Defendant Daniel O. Escamilla appealed pro se from a district court order that denied his motion for reconsideration in a civil rights case brought by plaintiff Isaac Garcia. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and found none, affirming the lower court's denial of the reconsideration motion because Escamilla failed to present any valid grounds for relief.

Escamilla raised two arguments on appeal: first, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case, and second, that Garcia's state law claims against him should not have been tolled under federal supplemental jurisdiction rules. The court rejected both arguments as meritless, finding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and that the statutory tolling provision applied appropriately to preserve Garcia's state law claims while the federal action remained pending.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
Whether district court had original jurisdiction over the civil rights action
Whether state law claims were properly tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) during pendency of federal action

Procedural posture

Escamilla appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration in Garcia's federal civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Daniel O. Escamilla appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in plaintiff Isaac Garcias § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Escamillas Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration because Escamilla failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1262-63 (discussing when reconsideration is appropriate).

We reject as meritless Escamillas contentions that the district court lacked original jurisdiction, or that plaintiffs state law claims against Escamilla should not have been tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c), (d) (providing circumstances under which district courts may assert or decline supplemental jurisdiction, and tolling state statutes of limitations for “any claim” asserted under this statute “while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period”). Escamillas reliance on Morris v. Giovan, 225 Ariz. 582, 242 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) is misplaced.

AFFIRMED.