Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03250/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03250-8/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

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN SINGER, JOHN SCOTT

MCKAY, MICHAEL COOMBS,

TAMARA WOODS, DONALD EVANS

QUIDACHAY, LILLIAN SING, MING

LEE, T. MICHAEL YUEN, CANTIL

SAKAUYE, ANTHONY KLINE, JAMES

RICHMOND, RECEIVER SPECIALISTS,

and A. JAMES ROBERTSON, II,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-03250 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

The undersigned judge’s recent order dismissed this action as frivolous and declared

plaintiff Archibald Cunningham, a licensed attorney, a vexatious litigant subject to pre-filing

review (Dkt. No. 113). Judgment was entered (Dkt. No. 114). Now, Cunningham has filed a

motion for reconsideration.

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is appropriate if the district court “(1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under Rule 60(b),

reconsideration is appropriate 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

Case 3:14-cv-03250-WHA Document 120 Filed 01/26/15 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

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

Cunningham’s motion fails to satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration. Cunningham

again recites the same claims regarding defendants’ alleged conspiracy to violate his

constitutional rights through the unauthorized practice of law. None of these implausible

allegations is new, and the motion fails to identify any new evidence warranting reconsideration.

The motion then argues that the previous order’s conclusion that Cunningham’s claims were

frivolous amounted to a manifest error of law. This order disagrees. If Cunningham feels

differently, he can seek relief from our court of appeals. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03250-WHA Document 120 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2