Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01741/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01741-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SNYDER,

CDCR #AC‒9136,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[ECF No. 18]

On December 5, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff Robert Snyder’s Motion for a 

Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), and simultaneously 

dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. See ECF No. 9. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and ordered him to 

do so no later than January 21, 2020. Id. at 9. Instead, on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff 

filed a Notice of Appeal. See ECF No. 10. 

While his appeal was pending, he submitted an “Ex Parte Application for 

Continuance” with the Clerk of this Court. See ECF No. 14. Plaintiff admitted he had “six 

ongoing cases,” claimed “most of [his] time and energy is consumed by custody 

harassing him,” and acknowledged “his case [was] currently under review by the 9th 

Circuit Court of Appeals.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff requested the Court “put the matter over until 

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 20 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

the conclusion of the [a]ppellate proceedings,” because this case involved just “one of the 

many deadlines [he] [wa]s burdened by.” Id.

On January 24, 2020, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request for continuance in light 

of Plaintiff’s appeal. See ECF No. 15. The Court further noted that even it had

jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to comply with the 

deadline it previously set for amendment, the reasons he offered in support were 

insufficient. See id. at 2 n.1 (citing Forte v. Jones, 2014 WL 7069447, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 12, 2014) (noting that plaintiff’s “decision to engage in multiple simultaneous 

lawsuits is a matter of choice and the demands on his time and attention in one action do 

not constitute an excuse for deadlines missed in another action.”); Haywood v. Bedatsky, 

2007 WL 1412523, *5 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2007) (finding extension of time to serve 

defendants unwarranted because while plaintiff was proceeding pro se, he “[wa]s not a 

novice litigator,” and “had filed at least three previous lawsuits against many of the[] 

same [d]efendants.”)).

On January 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal. See ECF No. 

16. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s 

January 24, 2020 Order. See ECF No. 18. In it, Plaintiff claims “it isn’t his fault” that 

“multiple prisons have made concerted efforts” to thwart his meritorious lawsuits, and 

that he is “surrounded by problems with paltry library time with which to seek solutions.” 

Id. at 3‒5. Plaintiff specifically claims that “between 12/5/19 & 1/20/20 [he] had 4 

deadlines from different courts & was allowed no more than 21⁄2 hours per week; enough 

to work on one case out of four.” Id. at 5. Therefore, he now requests reconsideration of 

this Court’s January 24, 2020 Order, and additional time in which to file his Amended 

Complaint. Id. at 6.

I. Motion for Reconsideration

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 

reconsideration. Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has 

“inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 20 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2000). “The authority of district courts to reconsider their own 

orders before they become final, absent some applicable rule or statute to the contrary, 

allows them to correct not only simple mistakes, but also decisions based on shifting 

precedent, rather than waiting for the time-consuming, costly process of appeal.” Id. at 

1049. Thus, S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for reconsideration 

“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has 

been made to any judge ... has been refused in whole or in part.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). 

However, the party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such 

prior application.” Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2) permits motions for re consideration within 

“30 days of the entry of the ruling.”

A motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to a Local Rule may also be construed 

as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). See Osterneck v. Ernst & 

Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989). But a district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion 

only if it “‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 

used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona 

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to 

reconsider is not another opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, 

reassert arguments, or revamp previously unmeritorious arguments.” Reeder v. Knapik, 

2007 WL 2088402, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2007); see also Campion v. Old Republic 

Home Protection Co., Inc., 2011 WL 1935967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011)

(“[R]econsideration may not be used to get a second bite at the apple.”)

Here, Plaintiff’s request is timely; however, he points to no mistake, no new facts, 

and no new circumstance to justify reconsideration of this Court’s January 24, 2020 

Order. That Order simply denied his request for a continuance pending an appeal that was 

not yet final. See ECF No. 15. And while the Ninth Circuit has since dismissed his 

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 20 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

appeal, nothing in Plaintiff’s current Motion suggests this Court erred at all, let alone 

committed a “clear error” when it denied his January 23, 2020 application. “To be clearly 

erroneous, a decision must [be] more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must be dead 

wrong.” Campion, 2011 WL 1935967, at *1 (internal quotation omitted). 

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s January

24, 2020 Order, his Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. However, in

light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and in view of the limitations necessarily inherent to his 

continued incarceration, the Court will exercise its discretion and GRANT Plaintiff an

extension of time in which to re-open this case by filing an Amended Complaint.1 

The Amended Complaint must be filed with the Court on or before Monday,

April 6, 2020. It must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the 

Court’s December 5, 2019 Order (ECF No. 9), and must be complete by itself without 

reference to his original Complaint. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). Plaintiff may add no 

Defendants and plead no additional causes of action unrelated to the claims set forth in 

his original pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Should Plaintiff fail to file his Amended Complaint on or before April 6, 2020, the

Court will enter a final Order dismissing the case with prejudice based on his failure to

1 Plaintiff should assume no further extensions of time will be granted. See, e.g., Rosenblum 

v. Ellis, No. 1:05-CV-01473-LJO-GSA-PC, 2010 WL 2471148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 10,

2010) (advising pro se prisoner that the “lack of access to the law library is not sufficient

grounds for a motion for extension of time in which to file an amended complaint.”); id.

(“The amended complaint does not require legal analysis. Plaintiff must simply allege the

facts that entitle him to relief, and state the legal cause of action for each claim.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 20 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-01741-LAB-MDD

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

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Lira v. Herrera, 

427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the 

opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 

complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”); Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 

1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 

ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not 

do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01741-LAB-DEB Document 20 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5