Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476-13/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD RANDOLPH, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07476 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 1, 2008, the Court issued an order denying plaintiff Reginald Randolph’s motion for

summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that order. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave. 

The Court fully considered and rejected all of the arguments put forward by plaintiff in the

underlying motion, and plaintiff raises no new facts or law here. The only conclusive finding by the

state court was that defendants had the right to search plaintiff; the state court never made any

conclusive finding that the arrest of plaintiff was without probable cause. In addition, this Court did not

determine that defendants’ search of plaintiff was a legal Terry search. Rather, as clearly explained in

the order, the Court determined that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendants

had probable cause to make an arrest and could perform a search of plaintiff incident to that arrest.

Finally, the Court fully considered plaintiff’s arguments regarding the city’s Monell liability. 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 130 Filed 03/13/08 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

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED [Docket No. 128]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 130 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2