Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02541/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02541-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Sergeant ADAM, Nurse BANTA, Dr.

QUAN, Dr. FRIEDMAN, Dr. H.

AUNG, Warden G. E. HARRIS, Dr.

W. JACKSON, Dr. GREWAL, Dr.

FRIEDERICHS, Dr. KRISHNA, and

SSA ALLISON BRAGER, all at the

Correctional Training Facility; Dr.

PAPPENFUS, Dr. YEN, Nurse

RODRIGUEZ, and Warden M.

POWERS, all at Avenal State Prison, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2541 WHA (PR) 

DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING 

The is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order most

of plaintiff’s claims were dismissed or dismissed with leave to amend, although the Court noted

that one claim, against defendant Adam, was sufficient to proceed. Petitioner amended. In his

amended complaint he dropped his claim against Adam and presented no coherent new claims. 

The amended complaint therefore was dismissed without further leave to amend and the case

closed. Plaintiff has appealed.

Before he filed his notice of appeal, plaintiff filed a document headed “Petitioner’s

Motion to Oppose Dismissal” which may be a motion to reconsider. It presents no

Case 3:05-cv-02541-WHA Document 32 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

comprehensible basis for vacating the dismissal except plaintiff’s unsupported contention that

he should have been given another opportunity to remedy the deficiencies. Because he already

had one opportunity and completely failed to take it, and because there is no reason to believe

from the filings plaintiff has made in this case that he would cure the deficiencies if given

another chance to do so, the motion (document number 25 on the docket) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (document number 24), filed before the

motion the reconsider and probably before he had received the dismissal, is DENIED as moot. 

The clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\SMITH, R541.REC.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02541-WHA Document 32 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2