# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · October 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11222754

## Case

- **Full name:** Dolores Lucero v. Oak Run Elementary School District, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 28, 2025
- **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/11222754

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 DOLORES LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-02854-DC-SCR
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13 OAK RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
17 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 18, 2025, District Judge Coggins
18 entered an Order (ECF No. 90) adopting the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 71), and
19 granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Order dismissed the School Board Defendants
20 without leave to amend claims against those defendants. The Order also granted Defendant
21 Livingston’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend “only as to the retaliation and class-of-one
22 claims” against Defendant Livingston. ECF No. 90 at 2. The Order granted Plaintiff 30 days to
23 file an amended complaint. Because the Court served the Order by mail, an amended complaint
24 was due by October 23, 2025.1 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
25 ////
26
1 Thirty days after September 18 was Saturday, October 18, making Monday, October 20 the
27 starting point for the deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). However, because the Clerk of the
Court served the Order by mail, three days were added, making the amended complaint due on
28 October 23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
1 Instead, Plaintiff made two filings apparently objecting to, or seeking reconsideration, of
2 the Order.2 ECF No. 91 & 93. Motions for reconsideration are “disfavored.” See Hill v.
3 Newsom, 2025 WL 1531435, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2025). “Generally, reconsideration is
4 appropriate only when controlling law has changed, new evidence has become available, or when
5 necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id., citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
6 Multnomah Cnty., Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s
7 successive and voluminous requests for reconsideration each exceed 100 pages. ECF No. 91 &
8 93. Motions to reconsider are “not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to ‘rehash’
9 arguments previously presented.” Hill at *1 (internal citation omitted).
10 The filing of these objections/motions to reconsider, which have not been granted, does
11 not affect Plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the orders and deadlines set by the Court. As the
12 Order stated: “If Plaintiff decides not to file a first amended complaint, this action will be
13 dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim.” ECF No. 90 at 2. After the
14 resolution of this Order to Show Cause, the Court will address Plaintiff’s objections/motions to
15 reconsider.
16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17 1. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days of the date of this Order, why the
18 Court should not recommend that the action be dismissed for failure to file an amended
19 complaint in compliance with the Order of September 18, 2025 (ECF No. 90).
20 2. Plaintiff may respond by filing a First Amended Complaint that complies with the Court’s
21 prior order (ECF No. 90).
22 ////
23
2 However, it is not entirely clear what order or orders Plaintiff is objecting to. Each motion
24 states that it will seek “[a]n order rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations (ECF No. 89) issued on September 17, 2025.” ECF No. 91 at 2; ECF No. 93
25 at 2. The Order issued on September 17, 2025, at ECF No. 89, is not a finding and
recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, but is an Order from Judge Coggins denying Plaintiff’s
26 motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff also states that she challenges ECF No. 82 which
she characterizes as an “Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations.” ECF No. 93 at 2.
27 However, ECF No. 82 is a minute order issued by the undersigned. But the substance of
Plaintiff’s objections appear to relate to the September 18, 2025 Order dismissing the complaint
28 with leave to amend.
] 3. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case. See Fed. R.
2 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
3 SO ORDERED.
4 | DATED: October 27, 2025
SEAN C. RIORDAN
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11222754. Public record. Not legal advice.