Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01958-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 09cv1958

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDERRAHIM SADDAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1958 JM(CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER;

VACATING EARLIER DISMISSAL 

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CITY COUNCIL;

CITY ATTORNEY; MAYOR; CHIEF OF

POLICE; and POLICE OFFICER M.

KNUTSON,

Defendants.

On September 11, 2009 the court entered an order declining to exercise subject

matter jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) to enjoin a September

16, 2009 state court hearing on a criminal misdemeanor charge alleged against Plaintiff

(the “Order”). (Docket No. 11). Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting

reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff contends that the court committed clear error when it abstained from

exercising subject matter jurisdiction. The court responds to several of the arguments

Case 3:09-cv-01958-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/15/09 Page 1 of 3
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 - 09cv1958

raised by Plaintiff. First, the Order was not a ruling on the merits, as argued by

Plaintiff. (Motion at p.819-22). The Order should not be construed as reflecting any

comment, opinion, or ruling on the merits of Plaintiff’s civil rights claims. The Order

does not bar Plaintiff from pursuing his claims against Defendants. The Order simply

declines to intervene in the on-going criminal dispute pending in state court. Second,

Plaintiff argues that the court “made what appears to be an innocent mistake regarding

whether charges are pending before the Superior Court.” (Motion at p.2:26-27). In the

TRO motion, Plaintiff represented that the misdemeanor citation had been rejected by

the City Attorney and that he had written the City Attorney to confirm the disposition

of his case. (TRO Motion ¶¶5, 6). He also sought to enjoin the hearing from going

forward, even though he represented that the hearing was not going forward. (Id. ¶23).

The only new information raised in the motion for reconsideration is a September 11,

2009 letter received from the City Attorney wherein he represents that the report on the

incident at the gas station “has been reviewed and sent back for further investigation.”

(Exh. 1). The letter also indicates that “charges could be filed at a later date.” Id.

Accordingly, there are no pending charges against Plaintiff. 

The court notes that if the state hearing is not going forward, there is no basis to

enjoin the state court from proceeding with a non-scheduled hearing. Under these

circumstances, the court denies the TRO motion as moot because there is no scheduled

hearing to enjoin.

With respect to the future course of the present action, the court vacates its earlier

dismissal and instructs the Clerk of Court to re-open this action nunc pro tunc to

September 14, 2009, the date Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-01958-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/15/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 09cv1958

Defendants are instructed to file a response to the complaint within the time frame

provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-01958-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/15/09 Page 3 of 3