Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03806/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03806-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ARCHIBALD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOSS; CITY OF BERKELEY; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03806 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On November 30, 2006, after providing him with four opportunities to state a basis for federal

jurisdiction, this Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff Brian Archibald’s third amended complaint

and denied his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. See Docket No. 14. Now before the Court is

plaintiff’s “Petition for Reconsideration and Reversal,” filed on December 7, 2007. In his petition,

plaintiff asks the Court to reverse its November 30, 2006 dismissal, grant his IFP application, and order

that plaintiff need not pay the $350 filing fee that he owes to the United States District Court as a result

of his filing this lawsuit. 

The Court construes plaintiff’s petition as a motion for reconsideration brought pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits the court to “relieve a party . . . from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies relief.” Such motion “must be

made within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion was

made within a reasonable time, just over one year after the Court’s final judgment and within a few days

of the plaintiff’s receipt of the “Third & Final Past Due Notice” requiring him to pay his $350 filing fee.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is thus properly before the Court.

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his IFP application. The Court agrees with

Case 3:06-cv-03806-SI Document 17 Filed 01/22/08 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

plaintiff that his IFP application should have been granted because plaintiff’s affidavit states that he is

unemployed, has less than $1,000 in assets, and is unable to pay the filing fee. In addition, plaintiff

indicates in his recently-filed motion that he continues to be unable to pay the $350 filing fee.

Assuming that plaintiff is being truthful, plaintiff is within the parameters necessary to grant an IFP

application. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For this reason, plaintiff’s application to proceed without the

payment of a filing fee is retroactively GRANTED and plaintiff need not pay the $350 filing fee. 

Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal of his third amended complaint. For the

reasons stated in the November 30, 2006 order, as well as other prior orders, the Court continues to hold

that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Dismissal was therefore

appropriate under the second stage of the IFP analysis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Cato v. United

States, 70 F. 3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that a court may dismiss an action under § 1915 if

the “complaint neither identifies any constitutional or statutory right that was violated nor asserts any

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction . . .”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion

to reconsider its dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 16].

Dated: January 22, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03806-SI Document 17 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2