Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06800/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06800-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY ADAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06800-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS (1) FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND (2) TO ALTER OR 

AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Docket Nos. 40, 46

Plaintiff’s second submitted “2nd motion for defaul[t] and summary judgment” is 

DENIED because it is frivolous. Docket No. 40. The filing of the third motion seeking the same 

basic relief was frivolous.

Plaintiff’s “motion to alter/amend judgment from 6-11-18 order” is DENIED. Docket No. 

46. Plaintiff fails to show newly discovered evidence, clear error, a manifestly unjust decision, or 

an intervening change in the law. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is 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.”) 

Once the Court makes a ruling, the issue is not open for continued debate in the district 

court. Motions for reconsideration are the exception, not the norm, and are appropriate only for 

the very limited circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Plaintiff already has filed 

two baseless motions for reconsideration that seem to evince nothing more than his general 

unhappiness with the Court’s rulings. These sorts of motions for reconsideration waste judicial 

resources. Likewise, repetitious presentation of the same motion wastes judicial resources. If 

Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s rulings, he may take an appeal at the appropriate time. 

Case 3:16-cv-06800-EMC Document 47 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff is now cautioned that he may in the future be subject to sanctions if he continues to file 

groundless motions for reconsideration or repetitious motions. The sanctions that may be imposed 

include monetary sanctions, restrictions on the number of motions Plaintiff may file, restrictions 

on the evidence Plaintiff may submit in support of his claims, or dismissal of part or all of this 

action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06800-EMC Document 47 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 2