Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05020/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05020-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

MICHAEL G. HOROWITZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RONALD A. TSCHETTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05020 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds no error,

factual or legal, in its disposition of the case. Although Plaintiff claims in his motion that the

basis for his age discrimination claim was not known to him until March of 2000, his

amended complaint establishes that he knew, or should have known, of the basis for this age

discrimination claim at the time he resigned from the Peace Corps, voluntarily or otherwise,

in March of 1999. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 24, 27. To the extent that venue for Plaintiff’s claims

of discrimination was originally proper in the District of Columbia, Plaintiff waived his

objections to any change in venue when he requested that the case be transferred to the

Northern District of California. 

Plaintiff repeatedly argues that the Court has violated the command that the complaint

of a pro se litigant must be construed leniently. The issue in this case, however, is not

whether Plaintiff has set forth allegations sufficient to state a claim, but rather whether

Case 3:06-cv-05020-CRB Document 69 Filed 09/19/07 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

Plaintiff’s allegations are so specific that he has pled himself out of a claim. Here, even

construing its allegations in a favorable light, Plaintiff’s amended complaint indicates its own

untimeliness. The Court has considered the remaining arguments presented in Plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss and finds that none of them merit amendment or withdrawal of the

judgment already entered in the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the

judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05020-CRB Document 69 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2