Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK CONRAD FAUROT II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT )

EXECUTIVE OFFICER RODD H. )

 BARTON, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-1005 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 ORDER

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Document #15)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, has filed

this action against Clerks at the Kings County Superior Court. In the original complaint,

Plaintiff alleged that the Kings County Superior Court Clerks improperly returned his state

habeas corpus petition, without filing it, because Plaintiff’s petition was on an older form and did

not contain an original signature. 

The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) because

Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis. After reviewing the complaint, on

September 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for

failure to state a claim.

On October 10, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Judge’s September 15, 2006 order. 

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed

to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” The court reviews a

motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

DISCUSSION 

The court has reviewed the original complaint and the Magistrate Judge’s September 15,

2006 order. The court agrees the original complaint fails to state a claim, and Plaintiff has not

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

meet the standard for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge’s dismissal of the original

complaint was simply not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As explained by the Magistrate

Judge, the original complaint did not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for denial of access to

the courts because Defendants have not deprived Plaintiff of his ability to file a state habeas

corpus petition in the Kings County Superior Court. In addition, based on the original

complaint’s allegations, it appears Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

Finally, Plaintiff has now filed a first amended complaint. An amended complaint supersedes

the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order dismissing the original complaint

appears to be moot because this action is now proceeding on the amended complaint. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s September 15, 2006 order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 3