Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00499/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00499-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY

(Doc. Nos. 9 and 10)

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The 

action was transferred to this court on April 6, 2016. (Doc. No. 4.) On May 4, 2016, the court 

denied plaintiff’ application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 

No. 7.) The action was therefore dismissed without prejudice to refiling accompanied by the filing 

fee. (Id. at 2–3.) On May 23, 2016, plaintiff submitted two filings—a motion for reconsideration of 

the order dismissing this action without prejudice and a motion to disqualify the magistrate judge 

and district judge assigned to this case. (Doc. Nos. 9 and 10.) For the reasons that follow, both 

motions are denied.

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motion for Reconsideration

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). 

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, 

and recapitulation” of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. U.S.

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set 

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. 

See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in 

part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a 

party must show what “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist 

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 

230(j).

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff appears to disagree with the court’s classification 

of this action as a civil rights complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) He contends that instead of a civil rights 

action, he filed a “statutory action permitted by statutory law” under the False Claims Act. Plaintiff 

accuses the court of fraud and suggests that 28 U.S.C § 1915(g) does not apply.1 Plaintiff’s

arguments in this regard do not present grounds for reconsideration. First, § 1915(g) by its terms 

applies to all civil actions including appeals of a judgment in a civil action and is not limited to 

actions concerning conditions of confinement, meaning that it is applicable regardless of how 

plaintiff characterizes the nature of his action. Second, as has been explained to plaintiff by other 

courts, “the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that pro se plaintiffs are prohibiting from pursuing 

claims on behalf of others, and specifically may not prosecute False Claims qui tam actions on 

behalf of the United States without retaining licensed counsel.” Pierce v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., No. 

1:15-cv-00482 BAM PC, 2015 WL 6081905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) (citing Simon v. 

 1

 Plaintiff has filed numerous actions in the district courts within the State of California alleging 

similar claims. 

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore, as a party proceeding pro se, 

plaintiff cannot bring any False Claims actions on behalf of the United States as he has attempted to 

do here.

II. Motion for Disqualification

Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, “whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and 

files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal 

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no 

further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. See 

Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), “[a]ny ... judge ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in 

which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1043. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455(b) provides in relevant part, “[h]e shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: 

[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 

Under both recusal statutes, the substantive standard is “[W]hether a reasonable person with 

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1043 (citing United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th 

Cir. 1997). However, the bias must arise from an extrajudicial source and cannot be based solely on 

information gained in the course of the proceedings. Id. (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 

540, 554–56 (1994). “Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 

partiality motion.” In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Liteky, 510 

U.S. at 555.)

Here, plaintiff’s motion for disqualification is apparently based on his belief that the assigned 

judges have wrongfully prohibited him from proceeding on behalf of the United States in this action. 

(Doc. No. 10.) Not only is plaintiff incorrect, for the reasons discussed above, but he has failed to 

present any facts to suggest impartiality or bias on the part of the assigned judges outside of this 

court’s legal rulings.

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 9) and 

motion for disqualification (Doc. No. 10) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 4