Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05190/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05190-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

VINTON FROST,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05190-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Docket No. 56

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Administrative Relief requesting that the 

Court “provide him copies, according to his privilege as in forma pauperis plaintiff, of the 

proceedings in this courtroom on 2/13/2020: motion to dismiss and motion to sanction.” See

Docket No. 51. On March 4, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion. See Docket No. 53. In 

the denial order, the Court explained that, although it could “authorize transcripts to be paid from 

the Court’s non-appropriated funds when the Court deems it necessary, Plaintiff has provided no 

good reason justifying his request for a transcript.” Id. It further noted: “The reasoning of the 

Court’s rulings on the motions heard on February 13, 2020 were set forth in the Court’s order 

issued on February 19, 2020.” Id. (citing Docket No. 49). 

On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave of Court for Reconsideration of 

Court’s Order to Deny Administrative Relief. See Docket No. 56. In that Motion Plaintiff asserts: 

“As a matter of law and fundamental fairness, Court has declared Plaintiff an in forma pauperis

litigant, and therefore he has been granted the privilege of foregoing court fees and costs, whereby 

no good cause need be cited in a request for records because it is quite obvious that a request for 

court records of oral arguments in a hearing before a Judge is simple good lawyering, even by a 

Case 3:19-cv-05190-EMC Document 57 Filed 03/23/20 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

pro se attorney.” Id. at 1–2.

Civil Local Rule 7-9 sets forth the requirements for a motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration. That rule requires that a party “show reasonable diligence in bringing the 

motion” and establish one of the following:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in 

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court 

before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration 

is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not 

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order.

Civ. L.R. 7-9. However, Plaintiff has not established “a material difference in fact or law from 

that which was presented to the Court,” “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of 

law,” or “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Administrative Relief. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 56. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05190-EMC Document 57 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2