Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04266/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04266-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREA WOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04266-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 19

By order filed August 28, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary 

injunction, whereby plaintiff had asserted that two state court orders were void, and, 

consequently, that an injunction should issue precluding their enforcement. The Court 

denied the motion for two reasons. First, the Court found it lacked authority to grant the 

requested preliminary injunction, as plaintiff was seeking preliminary relief not "'of the 

same character as that which may be finally granted'" (see Order, filed August 28, 2019, 

at 2:1-9) (quoting Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 

631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015)), given plaintiff's express statement, in the operative complaint, 

that she does not seek an order "'overturning'" any state court order (see Order at 2:4-6) 

(quoting Amended Complaint ¶ 16)). Second, the Court found it lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction to grant the requested preliminary injunction, as, under the "'Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine,'" a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments. (See

Order at 2:10-24) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 

280, 283, 291-292 (2005).)

The Court is now in receipt of a document titled "Reconsideration," filed by plaintiff 

on August 29, 2019, which document the Court construes as a motion for leave to file a 

Case 3:19-cv-04266-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

motion for reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9 (providing party seeking reconsideration of 

order entered before entry of final judgment must first seek leave to file motion for 

reconsideration). So construed, the motion will be denied.

First, plaintiff fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration. See Civil 

L.R. 7-9(b) (setting forth showing party must make to obtain leave to file motion for 

reconsideration). Next, even if such basis existed, the sole argument made by plaintiff on 

the merits pertains to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the second reason cited in the 

Court's order; plaintiff makes no argument as to why the first reason cited does not 

preclude the injunctive relief she seeks. Moreover, in asserting the requested injunction 

is not barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, plaintiff relies exclusively on Rhoades 

v. Penfold, 694 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1983), which, in turn, relied on an earlier case, 

Gresham Park Community Organization v. Howell, 652 F.2d 1227, 1236 (5th Cir. 1981), 

wherein the Fifth Circuit had held a federal district court has jurisdiction to entertain a 

request for "an injunction enjoining enforcement of a state court judgment," see Rhoades, 

694 F.2d at 1047 (citing Gresham Park, 652 F.2d at 1235-1236); Gresham Park, 

however, was issued prior to Feldman, and consequently, is no longer good law, see

Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir. 1983) (acknowledging holding in

Gresham Park was "shortlived," as it is inconsistent with "Supreme Court's intervening 

decision in [Feldman]").

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is 

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04266-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2