Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04948/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04948-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GERALDINE M. ALBEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court are Plaintiff Gregory Steshenko’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file 

motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to file appeal in forma pauperis and motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF Nos. 80, 81. Pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), the Court finds these motions suitable for decision without oral argument

and hereby VACATES the hearings set for September 10, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. Having considered

Plaintiff’s motions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motions. 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has brought two related age-discrimination actions: 

Steshenko v. Albee, the instant case, and Steshenko v. Gayrard, No. 13-3400. In the instant case, 

Plaintiff alleges he suffered age discrimination in his application to San Francisco State 

University. On October 22, 2012, Plaintiff applied to the CLS Training Program at San Francisco

State University. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 45, (“SAC”) ¶ 22. On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff 

was notified that his application was denied due to his late submission of his transcript and that he 

would not be invited for an interview. Id. ¶ 23. On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff subsequently reapplied 

for the spring semester, to begin coursework in 2014. Id. ¶¶ 23–24. According to Plaintiff, 

sometime during July 2013 or August 2013, Defendant Albee and other university employees 

“assembled, communicated and finally decided that Plaintiff [was] not suitable for the CLS 

program because of his age, and therefore should not be invited to an admissions interview.” Id. ¶ 

25 On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff was notified that his application was denied because “he did not 

meet the criteria for selection into the CLS program.” Id. ¶ 26. According to Plaintiff, much 

younger applicants, in their 20s, with much more inferior academic credentials and work 

experience, were invited for interviews and subsequently admitted to the program. Id.

Accordingly, Plaintiff concluded that he was discriminated on the grounds of age. In making this 

conclusion, Plaintiff also alleges that “[n]o persons of the protected age have ever been admitted to 

. . . this program” and that “[t]he age discrimination is rampant.” Id. ¶ 21.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a timely administrative claim with the California State 

University Chancellor’s Office. Id. ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff’s claim was denied. Id. Plaintiff also 

alleges that he gave timely notices of the instant action to Defendants, the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and the Attorney General of the United States. Id. ¶ 9.

B. Procedural History

On October 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed an original Complaint. ECF No. 1. On March 26, 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 14. That same day, 

Defendants amended the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 15. After the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion to extend time to file a response to the motion to dismiss, on April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

an opposition. ECF No. 20. On April 23, 2014, Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 21. The Court 

held a hearing on May 15, 2014. Plaintiff filed a supplemental letter brief on May 16, 2014. ECF 

No. 23.

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. In the 

order, the Court granted with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s 

claims against the Board of Trustees and Plaintiff’s § 1985(3) claim against Albee. (“May 20, 

2014 Order”), ECF No. 29 at 17. The Court also granted with prejudice Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against Albee; 

Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination Act claim against Albee; and Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act claim against Albee. May 20, 2014 Order at 17. Finally, the Court declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and thus granted 

without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims—FEHA claim, Bane 

Act claims, and IIED claim. May 20, 2014 Order at 17. 

On May 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 31.

Plaintiff filed a corrected First Amended Complaint on June 29, 2014. (“FAC”), ECF. No. 34. On 

June 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (“MTD”), ECF No. 

33, which Plaintiff opposed on June 29, 2014, (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 35. On July 10, 2014, 

Defendants filed a reply. (“Reply”), ECF No. 36. 

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. ECF No. 41. The Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Board of Trustees with the exception of Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination Act claim. The 

Court dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Albee and 

dismissed with prejudice the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Albee. 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed his SAC. ECF No. 45. Defendant Board of Trustees 

filed its answer on October 27, 2014. ECF No. 47. That same day, Defendant Albee filed a motion 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process claim. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 

11, 2014, ECF No. 48, and Albee filed a reply on November 18, 2014, ECF No. 49. On February 

25, 2015, the Court granted with prejudice Albee’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process 

claim, leaving Plaintiff with only his claims against Defendant Board of Trustees. ECF No. 76.

On December 19, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 51. More specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s action on 

the basis of apparent material omissions in Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications. Plaintiff filed 

an opposition, ECF No. 55, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 60. Defendants also filed 

requests for judicial notice, ECF Nos. 54, 61, and a motion for leave to file a supplemental reply 

brief, ECF No. 68. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for leave to file a 

supplemental reply brief, ECF No. 69. On April 1, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 79. 

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration. ECF 

No. 80. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 81. Defendants filed an opposition. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff filed a

reply. ECF No. 83.

II. DISCUSSION

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s argument is that the Court erred in granting Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). More specifically, Plaintiff challenges the 

Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff deliberately concealed material information in Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis applications (“IFP applications”) on four separate occasions, requiring dismissal with 

prejudice under § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff contends that the Court is biased, “lacks any solid factual 

background” for the Court’s April 1, 2015 order, and otherwise disputes the merits of the Court’s 

April 1, 2015 order. ECF No. 113 (“Mot.”), at 3. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

April 1, 2015 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).1

Rule 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or 

discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. 

No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration “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 

judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (referring to Rule 59(e)); 

see also Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1259–61 (9th Cir. 2004) (referring to Rule 

60(b)). Plaintiff does not specify on which subsection of Rule 60(b) Plaintiff relies as the basis for

his motion for reconsideration, but it appears that Plaintiff relies on Rule 60(b)(6), which is a 

catchall provision that allows a court to grant reconsideration in an effort to prevent manifest 

injustice. See United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“The rule is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking 

timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. 

Although Plaintiff strongly disagrees with the Court’s April 1, 2015 order granting 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show any circumstances 

warranting relief under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff contends that the Court committed legal error in 

concluding that Plaintiff maintains an ownership interest in his home, but does not explain how 

any of Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his motion for reconsideration differ from the arguments 

that the Court rejected as unpersuasive in the April 1, 2015 order. “Mere disagreement with a 

court’s order does not provide a basis for reconsideration.” Durkee v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-

0617, 2015 WL 1156765, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration does not raise arguments distinct 

from those in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). Moreover, as the 

Court’s April 1, 2015 order was not an interlocutory order, Plaintiff is not required to seek leave of 

Court before filing a motion for reconsideration. See Civ. L.R. 7–9(a). The Court therefore 

DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file motions for reconsideration. 

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

1253 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff’s arguments in the instant motion are repetitive of the arguments 

Plaintiff raised in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the Court addressed in the

April 1, 2015 order. Plaintiff has not identified any newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void or 

satisfied judgment, or any mistake or excusable neglect that would be grounds for reconsideration 

under Rule 60(b). As an aside, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s continuing ad hominem attacks on 

counsel for Defendants are not a basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).2

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff may be relying on Rule 60(b)(6)’s catchall provision, 

the Court concludes that 60(b)(6) does not apply. Rule 60(b)(6) is a narrow exception that applies 

where a party can “demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented 

him from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion.” Comm. 

Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, however, Plaintiff does not 

claim that he was unable to raise arguments in opposition to Defendants’ motion that Plaintiff now 

wishes the Court to review. To the contrary, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss and submitted exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition. Reviewing the parties’ 

submissions, the relevant law, and record in this case, the Court concluded that dismissal with 

prejudice was warranted under § 1915(e)(2). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not 

 

2

Plaintiff further contends that the Court is biased against pro se litigants because the Court 

submitted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the briefs. The Court has reviewed serial motions to 

dismiss, motions for interlocutory appeal, motions for reconsideration, and issued several case 

management orders in both Steshenko v. Gayrard and Steshenko v. Albee. See generally Case Nos. 

13-3400, Dkt.; 13-4948, Dkt. For many of these motions, some of which resulted in favorable 

rulings for Plaintiff, the Court exercised its discretion to submit the motions without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. Moreover, the Court 

was not required to hold a hearing or oral argument before ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. See Jacobs v. Lanterman Dev. Ctr., 64 F. App’x 98, 100 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Morrow 

v. Topping, 437 F.2d 1155, 1156 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam)). The parties had fully briefed the 

motion, submitted exhibits, and the Court issued a 15-page order addressing the parties’ 

contentions. See ECF No. 106. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s determination of 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is not evidence of judicial bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 

U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 

partiality motion. . . . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”). 

Similarly, Plaintiff’s contention that the Court should have granted Plaintiff’s “request” for 

in camera review is unavailing. The Court did, in fact, review the exhibits that Plaintiff attempted 

to file under seal, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal. See No. 13-3400, ECF No. 85.

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No.13-CV-04948-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

identified any basis under Rule 60(b) that calls for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration 

“may not be used to relitigate old matters,” which is what, in essence, Plaintiff seeks to do. See 

Baker, 554 U.S. at 485 n.5. Accordingly, the Court DENIES reconsideration pursuant to Rule 

60(b).

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status 

on appeal. As the Court has found that Plaintiff intentionally omitted material information from 

the previously approved IFP applications before this Court, ECF No. 79, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file motion for 

reconsideration, motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b), and request to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04948-LHK Document 84 Filed 07/06/15 Page 7 of 7