Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00573-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEROY WILLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0573 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, recently paroled, who commenced this civil rights 

action in November 2013. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and Local Rule 305(a); see also ECF No. 13. 

Upon screening plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

the court dismissed this action without prejudice on May 5, 2015 for failure to state a cognizable 

claim for relief. See ECF No. 22. On May 15, 2015, plaintiff timely signed and mailed a motion 

for reconsideration. See ECF No. 24. 

 Local Rule 230 requires that a motion for reconsideration set forth, inter alia, “what new 

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist.” Local Rule 230(j). 

 In the present motion, plaintiff states only that “a complaint should not be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim” when “plaintiff meets [the] threshold to make a claim,” and that pro se 

litigants should be “held to [a] less stringent standard.” ECF No. 24 at 1. 

Case 2:14-cv-00573-AC Document 26 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

 When screening plaintiff’s SAC, the undersigned was expressly guided by the 

requirement that “[t]he court must . . . construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor.” See ECF No. 22 at 2 (citation omitted). 

Nevertheless, the undersigned found that the SAC fails to state a cognizable claim. The court 

noted the specific deficiencies in plaintiff’s putative due process and Eighth Amendment claims, 

as it had in screening plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and concluded that further amendment 

of the complaint would be futile. ECF No. 22. 

 The instant motion does not assert any new or different facts or circumstances warranting 

reconsideration of the dismissal of this action, see Local Rule 230(j), but merely seeks a more 

generous screening of the SAC; this is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF 

No. 24, is denied. 

DATED: June 26, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-00573-AC Document 26 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2