Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01716/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01716-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

NICHOLAS JACOBSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, JANE T.

HIMMELOVO, JESSICA HAMILTON,

PAUL MANAUT, VUTHY SEAN JENKINS,

SAMIRA A. ADAAN, KIRBY BRACKEL,

ALLEN E. DE LA CRUZ, AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants. / 

No. C 19-01716 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF DISABILITY CLAIMS

In July 2018, plaintiff Nicholas Jacobsen filed his initial lawsuit (Case No. 18-cv-04070-

WHA) (the related case) alleging defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Americans

with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and the Bane

Act, and were negligent and committed assault and battery. Defendants moved to dismiss the

complaint in November 2018 and an order granted the motion to dismiss the claims under the

ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The order denied

defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Bane

Act, and negligence. Importantly, the order dismissed plaintiff’s ADA claims on the basis that

the complaint failed to “plausibly suggest that defendants denied him services or a reasonable

accommodation because of plaintiff’s disability.” Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint

on January 31, but did not file a motion for leave to amend until February 7. Plaintiff then

Case 3:19-cv-01716-WHA Document 33 Filed 12/02/19 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

voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice on March 4 before the hearing on the motion

could take place (Dkt. Nos. 1, 23, 26, 34).

In April 2019, plaintiff filed the complaint in the instant action stating essentially the

same underlying facts and making the same claims of Fourteenth Amendment violations, ADA,

and Rehabilitation Act violations, and negligence. Defendants again moved to dismiss the

action. An August 2019 order granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and the Rehabilitation

Act claims against defendant Contra Costa County as well as the negligence claim against the

individual defendants. Now, over four months after the order issued, plaintiff moves for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his ADA claims (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8, 17, 28). 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Civil Local Rule 7-9, which states in

relevant part: “The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the

motion and . . . (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.”

It is unclear why plaintiff waited this long to file a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, and this order questions plaintiff’s “reasonable diligence” in filing the motion. 

Putting that fact aside, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file is still insufficient. Plaintiff alleges

the Court made a manifest error in dismissing his ADA claim because it “may have based its

ruling on plaintiff’s failure to allege that the County targeted plaintiff’s disability for

discriminatory treatment rather than that the County simply knowingly, or with deliberate

indifference, fail[ed] to provide accommodation for his disability.” As stated in the order

granting the motion to dismiss the ADA claim for the instant action as well as the related action,

the complaint’s allegations that plaintiff was denied a wheelchair and other assistive devices at

most allege that defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care, not an ADA

claim. The intent necessary for an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim was not the reason for the

holding. Because plaintiff has not shown a manifest failure by the Court, the motion is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01716-WHA Document 33 Filed 12/02/19 Page 2 of 2