# Mutton v. Google LLC > District Court, N.D. California · April 8, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078668 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** April 8, 2024 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078668 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078668. Public record. Not legal advice.