Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03078-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENYS NAMYSTIUK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SMITH BARNEY and JAINA SYSTEMS

NETWORK, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-03078 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

After plaintiff Denys Namystiuk failed to appear at the initial case management

conference, an order dismissed his case for failure to prosecute and for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction because the complaint was incomprehensible (Dkt. No. 22). Now, plaintiff has filed

a “motion to reconsider.”

As an initial matter, plaintiff has not sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as

required by Civil Local Rule 7–9. Even so, plaintiff’s motion is frivolous. Plaintiff states that

he will not come to the United States to litigate his case, but wishes to stay in the Ukraine

(where he lives) and litigate the case via telephone. This will not work. If plaintiff could not

litigate his case in the United States, he should not have filed it here. Plaintiff also disagrees

with the previous ruling that the complaint was incomprehensible and thus the Court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff states: “The case is dismissed for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. But is [sic] not true, because it decision [sic] against law” (Dkt. No.

24 at 6). The motion goes on to list several statutes and other difficult to discern argument.

Case 3:15-cv-03078-WHA Document 27 Filed 11/30/15 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 motion for reconsideration does not meet the standard set forth in Civil Local

Rule 7–9 and is thus DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03078-WHA Document 27 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2