The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 WILLIAM AARON MUTTON, Case No. 22-cv-02268-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING EIGHTH REQUEST
9 v. FOR RECONSIDERATION
10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: ECF No. 43
Defendants.
11
12
13 On or about April 12, 2022, Plaintiff, an inmate at Two Rivers Correctional Institution in
14 Umatilla, Oregon, filed this pro se action. On April 29, 2022, this case was dismissed with
15 prejudice upon initial screening and is closed. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff appealed the Court’s
16 dismissal order, ECF No. 18, but on August 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal
17 pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal, ECF No. 31. Now pending before the
18 Court is Plaintiff’s eighth motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 43. For the reasons set forth
19 below, the Court DENIES the eighth motion for reconsideration.
20 DISCUSSION
21 Nearly two years after this case was closed and one-and-a-half years after Plaintiff
22 voluntarily dismissed his appeal, Plaintiff has filed an eighth motion for reconsideration. ECF No.
23 43. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
24 P. 60(b)for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff alleges that he has discovered new evidence that
was unknown to him at the time of the Court’s dismissal of this action, namely that the Google
25
employee deliberately misclassified the image sent to the National Center for Missing and
26
Exploited Children as an A1 image, which refers to images of a prepubescent minor engaged in a
27
1 undress. Second, Plaintiff argues that that the Court erred in denying him leave to amend because
2 || dismissal with prejudice is warranted only where there are no facts that can be pled that could cure
3 the deficiency, citing to United States ex rel. Shea v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 16,
4 31 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd sub nom. United States ex rel. Shea vy. Cellco P’ship, 863 F.3d 923 (D.C.
5 || Cir. 2017). Plaintiff argues that the Court erred because it failed to inform him of the deficiency in
6 his complaint and allow him a chance to cure the deficiency. See generally ECF No. 43.
7 The Court DENIES Plaintiffs eighth motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has raised
g similar arguments in his prior motions for reconsideration, and the Court has denied these
9 arguments in reasoned orders. As explained in the Court’s orders denying Plaintiffs post-
10 judgment motions on June 21, 2022; July 27, 2022; October 11, 2022; and March 15, 2023, the
Court dismissed this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim because the named
defendants are private actors and the First Amendment does not prohibit private abridgement of
E speech. The Court correctly dismissed this action with prejudice because amendment could not
= cure the identified deficiencies, namely whether a First Amendment claim can be stated against
Google for flagging an image and forwarding it to the NCMEC. The alleged newly discovered
1S evidence regarding the actions taken by the Google employee does not cure the deficiency in the
16 First Amendment claim. See, e.g., ECF No. 21 at 3-4 (rejecting claim that named defendants are
7 not private actors); ECF No. 41 at 6-8 (same); ECF No. 41 at 8-10 (rejecting claim that Court
18 erred in dismissing action with prejudice).
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs eighth motion for
21 reconsideration. ECF No. 43. This case remains closed. Any future motions for reconsideration
22 raising arguments previously presented will be summarily denied.
23 This order terminates ECF No. 43.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 || Dated: April 8, 2024 .
26 Op Sy
JON S. TIGAR
27 ited States District Judge
28