Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05595/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05595-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

TOKUKO H. SYLVESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05595-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND 

EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Tokuko Sylvester moves for reconsideration of the May 14 order dismissing the 

complaint in this action with leave to amend.1 Civil Local Rule 7˗9(b) requires a party seeking 

reconsideration to identify: (1) “a material difference in fact or law” from that previously 

presented to the court, of which the party was unaware at the time of the prior order; (2) “new 

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time” of the prior order; or (3) a “manifest 

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” Sylvester’s motion 

does not satisfy any of these criteria. It simply adds detail to the same averments of misconduct 

found in her initial complaint and attaches “supplemental documents” intended to corroborate her 

claims. While such additional allegations and materials may be included or referenced in an 

amended complaint, they do not warrant reconsideration of the order dismissing Sylvester’s initial 

complaint. 

Sylvester also moves for reconsideration of the portion of the May 14 order denying her 

request for appointment of counsel. She has not, however, pointed to any new circumstances

 

1 Civil Local Rule 7˗9(a) requires a party to obtain leave of court before filing a motion for 

reconsideration. Sylvester did not seek leave before filing her motion. 

Case 3:14-cv-05595-RS Document 29 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

CASE NO. 14-cv-05595-RS

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

justifying reconsideration of that decision. As explained in the May 14 order, without 

downplaying the difficulties Sylvester may face as an unrepresented litigant, this case simply does 

not present the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to warrant appointment of counsel. 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The May 14 order granted Sylvester leave to amend her complaint. She was instructed to 

file an amended complaint on or before June 15, 2015. Rather than devoting her time to 

amending her complaint, Sylvester prepared and filed a motion for reconsideration. In light of 

Sylvester’s apparent confusion regarding the propriety of filing a motion for reconsideration under 

the circumstances present here, in the interests of justice the deadline for filing an amended 

complaint is hereby extended to July 15, 2015. In the event no amended complaint is filed by 

July 15, 2015, the action will be dismissed and the file closed, without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05595-RS Document 29 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2