A.B. v. City of Albany et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 A.B., Case No. 17-cv-03272-KAW Plaintiff, 8 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. CITY OF ALBANY, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 12 12 13 On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff A.B. filed the instant complaint against Defendants, as well as 14 an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff also 15 brought a motion to file his complaint and IFP application under seal, which was denied on June 7, 16 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 3-5.) On June 14, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's IFP application as 17 incomplete, based on Plaintiff's failure to include his full name in the IFP application. (Dkt. No. 9 18 at 1.) The Court gave Plaintiff until June 23, 2017 to file an IFP application using his full name, 19 and warned that failure to do so could result in his case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 20 (Id. at 1-2.) On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the Court extend the deadline to file an IFP 21 application, which the Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.) 22 On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the order denying his IFP 23 application. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff states that he is currently without legal counsel, but was 24 stalked and harassed while seeking such support. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff further states that he is of the 25 understanding that reconsideration of the Court's order is possible, and that a motion for 26 reconsideration would not prejudice either party. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.) 27 28 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. As an initial matter, Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires that a party seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In that request for 1 leave, the moving party must show one of the following: (1) that there is a material difference in 2 fact or law from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the order for which 3 reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring 4 after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 5 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court prior to the order. Even construing 6 Plaintiff's motion as a motion for leave, Plaintiff fails to satisfy any of these requirements. 7 Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify any error in the Court's order denying his IFP 8 application. Instead, Plaintiff appears to ask that the Court reconsider its order on the basis that 9 reconsideration is possible, rather than identifying a legal or factual reason for why the Court should reconsider its order. Plaintiff does not, for example, contend that he is entitled to not use 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 his full name in the IFP application by showing "special circumstances [in which] the party's need 12 for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the 13 party's identity." Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 14 2000). Plaintiff's general allegations that he has been harassed and stalked by unspecified persons 15 since filing this case is insufficient to show special circumstances. It appears that the alleged 16 actions against him were perpetrated by persons who already know his identity. The Court 17 therefore denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff must file an amended IFP 18 application that includes his full name by August 4, 2017 or the case may be dismissed for failure 19 to prosecute. 20 Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for 21 pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982. The Court has also adopted a manual for use by pro 22 se litigants, which may be helpful to Plaintiff. This manual, and other free information is available 23 online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?