Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01918/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01918-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ALLDREDGE aka Christ Tea 

Party 1773,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHE D'EVIL KLINTON; DAEMON 

KRAUT KOMMOUISTA TRAITORS;

SATAN OBAMA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB

ORDER:

1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 17)

AND

2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Joseph Alldredge, also known as “Christ Tea Party 177,” proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), has filed a “Motion Petition Reconsideration and Motion 

Petition for Rehearing” relating to the Court’s September 9, 2016 Order dismissing this 

civil action for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. (ECF No. 17.) In addition, Plaintiff has 

Case 3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB

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

filed an “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” (ECF No. 21.) The Court has already 

granted Plaintiff IFP status. Thus, this duplicative motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as 

moot.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this case on July 25, 2016, and later filed a 

Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. (ECF Nos. 1, 11.) On September 9, 2016, the Court 

granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint without prejudice 

because it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and the Court found 

Plaintiff’s claims to be frivolous. (ECF No. 14 at 5.) The Court also found that further 

amendment was futile and entered a final judgment. (Id.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration that is as incomprehensible as his 

Complaint. It contains references to what appears to be a rant regarding treason, a call for 

impeachment of government officials, and random references to terrorist organizations. 

These claims, like those found in his Complaint, are frivolous because they lack even “an 

arguable basis either in law or fact” and are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

A. Standard of Review

“A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision 

that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 

Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of 

Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). This type of motion seeks “a substantive 

change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 

an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 

F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) may not be used to “‘relitigate old matters, 

or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

Case 3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB

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

judgment.’” Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Mktg. Ltd., 919 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1117 (D. Nev. 

2013) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d 

ed. 1995)).

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is not based on newly discovered evidence or 

any intervening change in controlling law. See Ybarra, 656 F.3d at 998. Instead, Plaintiff 

appears to raise the same delusional arguments found in his Complaint. Here, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to demonstrate that this Court disregarded, misapplied, 

or failed to recognize any controlling precedent when it dismissed his Complaint without 

further leave to amend. 

Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to offer any valid basis upon which the Court might 

find its September 9, 2016 Order and Judgment of dismissal was erroneous or manifestly 

unjust, relief is not warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e) (ECF No. 17), and re-affirms its September 9, 2016 Order and 

Judgment dismissing this civil action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);

2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP as moot (ECF No. 21);

3) RE-CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from either the September 9, 2016

Judgment, or this Order, would be frivolous and therefore, would not be taken in good faith 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 

(1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is 

permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous); and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB

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

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate this action and to accept no further 

filings, except a Notice of Appeal, for filing in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01918-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 4