Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00913/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00913-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINCOLN D. FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES FISCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00913-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 37

On June 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants James Fischer and 

Michael Agosta’s motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Lincoln Finley’s second amended complaint

(“SAC”). Dkt. No. 36. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 21 

days of the date of the Order. Id.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document called “Third Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 

No. 37. But that document is not a complaint. Rather than containing a “short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought,” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, Plaintiff’s filing attempts to make legal arguments regarding the applicability of 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to this case. Because pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed, see Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court 

construes Plaintiff’s June 15 filing as a motion for reconsideration of the June 1 order.

Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires that, in order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the 

moving party must show one of the following: (1) “at the time of the motion for leave, a material 

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; (2) “[t]he emergence of new material 

facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or (3) “[a] manifest failure by the 

Case 4:14-cv-00913-HSG Document 38 Filed 07/10/15 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

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order.” The Court finds that Plaintiff has not identified any material 

difference in fact or law or any new facts or legal arguments that have emerged since the issuance 

of the Court’s June 1 order. Furthermore, there was no manifest failure by the Court to properly 

consider all of the facts and law relevant to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the SAC. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

The Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint. Plaintiff must

file an amended complaint that complies with the Court’s June 1 order and comports with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by July 17, 2015, or his case will be dismissed without leave to 

amend. Filing of further legal argument regarding the June 1 order is not permitted. The Court 

encourages Plaintiff to consider scheduling an appointment with the pro se Legal Help Center, 

either by calling 415-782-8982 or by signing up in the appointment book located on the table 

outside the door of the Legal Help Center at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, in San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00913-HSG Document 38 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 2