Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03915/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03915-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1

 Although Plaintiff should have moved the Court for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court will overlook this strict

procedural requirement. Civil L. R. 7-9(a).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEILSON C. CONOVER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF MASONS AND

ASSOCIATES,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03915 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Now before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by pro se Plaintiff Neilson

C. Conover.1 Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court order issued on November 10, 2004

denying his request for appointment of counsel, denying his application to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. The Court found that there were

insufficient facts in the complaint to make out a cognizable claim at the time, and afforded

Plaintiff thirty days, or no later than October 29, 2004, to amend his complaint to set forth some

factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction. Having failed to amend his complaint,

the suit was dismissed. 

The Court Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on February 8, 2006 which

requests that the Court accept Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants “were responsible for

stalking, intent to stalk, and conspiracy to stalk . . [which has caused Plaintiff] great pain

suffering, guilt and fear.” Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants may have known about his

federal filings and intended to violate his civil rights. He further requests information be

Case 3:04-cv-03915-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

subpoenaed from “United States Intelligence for the Court’s review.” Having carefully

reviewed Plaintiff’s submission and considered the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a material difference in fact or law which

should alter the analysis of this Court’s order of dismissal dated November 10, 2004. Civil L.R.

7-9(b)(1). Similarly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the emergence of new material facts or a

change in law occurring after the time of the Court’s order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2). Lastly,

Plaintiff has not offered any evidence of “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts

or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” Civil L. R. 7-9(b)(3). 

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03915-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2