Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01766/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01766-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331va Fed. Question: Violation 5th &amp; 14th Amendment

---

1

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

CORENELIUS OLUSEYI OGUNSALU,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

HEARINGS; CALIFORNIA 

COMMISSION ON TEACHER 

CREDENTIALING; and CALIFORNIA 

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [ECF No. 4]

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME [ECF No. 5]; 

and 

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL [ECF No. 6]

Before the Court are Plaintiff Cornelius Oluseyi Ogunsalu’s (“Plaintiff”) motions

for reconsideration, appointment of counsel, and extension of time to file an amended 

complaint. (ECF Nos. 4-6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 

motion for reconsideration, DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel, and 

DENIES as moot the motion for extension of time. Plaintiff may file an amended 

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

complaint curing the deficiencies discussed in the Court’s prior ruling (see ECF No. 3)

within 30 days of the date this order is issued.

I. Background

On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against the 

California Attorney General’s Office (“CAOG”), California Commission on Teacher 

Credentialing (“CCTC”), and the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). (ECF No. 

1.) Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) In 

his complaint Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his due process rights by failing 

to give him adequate notice before revoking his preliminary teaching credential and 

denying his application for a “clear” teaching credential. He also alleges that Defendants 

violated his First Amendment rights because the operation of California’s vexatiouslitigant statute prevented him from seeking redress from adverse administrative action in 

California court. 

On November 8, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

(ECF No. 3.) The Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for three reasons: 

(1) Plaintiff had sufficient notice regarding his OAH hearing and the resulting outcomes, 

(2) Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to use several procedural protections in 

preparation for and during that hearing, and (3) Plaintiff could not assert claims relating 

to the vexatious litigant statute against Defendants because the complaint did not allege 

that any action taken by Defendants caused the application of that statute. The Court 

gave Plaintiff 21 days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 9.)

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing the complaint 

without prejudice. For the reasons stated below, reconsideration is not appropriate.

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for 

reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time 

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. 

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of the complaint, Plaintiff first 

notes in an introductory section of his memorandum that the Court did not take into 

consideration the fact that there are two ongoing cases involving challenges to adverse 

action taken against Plaintiff: Ogunsalu v. San Diego Unified School District Board of 

Education, et al., No. 15-cv-02203-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), and Ogunsalu v. Sweetwater 

Union High School District, et al., No. 17-cv-01535-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal.). In both 

cases, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims and Plaintiff has appealed. See Nos. 

16-55624, 18-55359. Plaintiff fails to offer any reason to believe the pendency of these 

cases affects the propriety of this Court’s ruling dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

original complaint. He suggests, for example, that the fact that Precious JacksonHubbard, Michael Dodson, and Marco Samaniego—current principal, former principal, 

and vice principal of Plaintiff’s former school, respectively—are defendants in the other 

pending cases, which was “motivation from all three to falsely testify before the OAH to 

have Plaintiff’s teaching credentials revoked.” (ECF No. 4 at 8.1) But this fact does not 

suggest that the Court’s prior ruling in this case was incorrect.

In the argument section of his memorandum in support of the motion for 

reconsideration, Plaintiff first contends that the OAH lacked jurisdiction to conduct the 

hearings on November 14 and 15, 2016, which led to the revocation of Plaintiff’s 

preliminary credential and denial of his application for a clear credential. (Id. at 11.) 

Plaintiff explains that the OAH lacked jurisdiction to proceed with its hearing because at 

that time there were several lawsuit pending before this federal district court, the Public 

Employment Relations Board (“PERB”), and the California Court of Appeal. In 

 

1 Citations to pages in Plaintiff’s filings refer to the pagination provided by the CM/ECF system.

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

particular, Plaintiff argues that the fact that the Court of Appeal had pending before it 

Plaintiff’s request to file a petition2revoked the OAH’s jurisdiction. But Plaintiff fails to 

identify—and the Court cannot find—any California constitutional, statutory, regulatory, 

or case law authority suggesting that the pending litigation Plaintiff refers to would have 

revoked the OAH’s jurisdiction to proceed with and conclude its hearing.

3

Plaintiff also argues in his memorandum that the OAH’s decision was “in 

retaliation for scathing email communications Plaintiff had with CCTC General Counsel 

Ani Kindall.” (ECF No. 4 at 13–14.) Plaintiff, however, did not assert a retaliation claim 

in his complaint. The only mention of retaliation in the complaint is in the “Relief” 

section, in which Plaintiff asks the Court to order “the California Attorney General’s 

Office to cease and desi[s]t any and all retaliatory actions against Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 1 

at 11.) If Plaintiff wishes to present a retaliation claim in this case, he may add a 

retaliation claim in an amended complaint. Because no such claim existed in the original 

complaint, however, this argument does not provide a ground for reconsideration of the 

Court’s earlier order dismissing the original complaint.

Because Plaintiff does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence, does 

not identify a clear error in the Court’s earlier decision, and does not identify an 

intervening change in controlling law, reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order 

dismissing the complaint without prejudice is not appropriate.

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford retained 

counsel to pursue this case. (See ECF No. 6.) He notes that he has other pending legal 

 

2 Plaintiff asserts that he filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate Relief” 

in “this Court” on November 14, 2015. (Id. at 11 n.5.) The only case pending at that time in this district

was No. 15-cv-2203, and there is no petition for any writ located on that docket.

3 Plaintiff also notes that he is currently appealing his criminal conviction of harassment, and that the 

CCTC should have waited until that appeal was concluded before proceeding with any credential 

suspension or revocation proceedings based on that conviction. (ECF No. 4 at 15.) This issue was not 

presented in Plaintiff’s original complaint. To the extent he wishes to bring a claim on that basis, 

Plaintiff may include it in an amended complaint.

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

matters and that he suffers from various health problems.4 (Id.)

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) grants federal district courts with discretion to “request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” This discretion may be 

exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 

both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these 

issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff has already filed a complaint in this case. For the reasons set forth in the 

Court’s earlier ruling dismissing without prejudice that complaint, it does not appear at 

this time that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. In his 

complaint Plaintiff demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims in a reasonable 

manner. Plaintiff has not identified any new circumstances since his last filing that 

would suggest a diminished ability to articulate these claims. Moreover, at this point, the 

Court does not find the legal issues involved in this case to be unusually complex. 

In sum, this case does not present exceptional circumstances warranting 

appointment of pro bono counsel.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration 

(ECF No. 4), and DENIES the motion to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff 

may, within 30 days of the date this order is issued, file an amended complaint addressing 

the deficiencies noted in the Court’s previous order. (See ECF No. 3.) In light of that 

deadline, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 

 

4 Plaintiff also notes that in one of his appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit, the Appellate 

Commissioner ordered that pro bono counsel be appointed for Plaintiff. See No. 16-55624, ECF No. 27 

(ordering appointment of pro bono counsel). On January 31, 2018, however, the Appellate 

Commissioner revisited that order and vacated the appointment of counsel. No. 16-55624, ECF No. 29.

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17-cv-1766-GPC-AGS

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

4) is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01766-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6