Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01829/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN FREDERICK WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAYLESS TOWING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01829-LJO-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT

(doc. 5)

On November 17, 2009, this court granted plaintiff John Frederick Wheeler’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend within thirty days, to

allow plaintiff to amend or supplement his complaint to state a cognizable claim (doc. 3). On

December 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Request for Judicial Notice; Request for This

Court Sandra M. Sn[y]der to Person[a]lly Examin[e] Plaintiff’s Original and Amended Complaint

Because This Court Err[]ed” (doc. 5). The motion is substantively in the nature of a motion for

reconsideration of the portion of this court’s November 17, 2009, order dismissing plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 3). 

In prosecuting a motion for reconsideration, a party generally sets forth facts or law of a

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

(governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments) and Local Rule 78-230(k)

(governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions). In his motion, plaintiff

contended that the court misunderstood the allegations of his complaint and that because the

complaint did allege cognizable claims, the court erred in dismissing it with leave to amend. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01829-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Nonetheless, on December 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (doc. 4).

Because plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, his reconsideration motion is

moot. Accordingly, this court hereby DISMISSES the reconsideration motion filed as document

5 in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01829-LJO -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2