Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031-4/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY BLIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03031-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Docket No. 24

Previously, Plaintiff Harvey Blight, proceeding pro se, was granted in forma pauperis 

status but his complaint was dismissed pursuant to reviews by Judge Westmore and the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). His case was dismissed with prejudice after the 

undersigned determined that his second amended complaint (“SAC”) was deficient, e.g., because 

it failed to state a claim for relief and because immunities applied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

(providing that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, 

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – . . . (B) the action or 

appeal . . . (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or (iii) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief”). A final judgment in the case was entered 

on September 22, 2015.

On October 29, 2015, Mr. Blight filed a document captioned: “Petition for reversal and 

review of 9/22/15 order of dismissal/based on immunity standard; and also based on 

disqualification of prejudicial conduct; based on jurisdictional parameters. Health conditions 

prevented and interfered with the normal pursuit of jurisdictional timelines.” Because Mr. Blight 

is proceeding pro se, the Court shall construe this pending filing as (1) a motion for 

reconsideration and (2) a notice of appeal.

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 25 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

To the extent Mr. Blight‟s filing is a motion for reconsideration, the Court denies the 

motion. (For purposes of this order, the Court assumes that the motion may be considered either a 

motion to alter or amend the judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),1or a motion for relief from the 

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).)

The Court denies the motion because it is not persuaded by Mr. Blight‟s contention that a 

legal error was made in its assessment of his SAC. It was the Court‟s obligation to review the 

SAC, as required by § 1915(e). The fact that the Court dismissed the case without a hearing is 

immaterial. Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. See SEC v. McCarthy, 

322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Due process includes notice „reasonably calculated, under all 

the circumstances, to apprise interested parties‟ of the proceeding, and an opportunity to be 

heard.”). Notice and an opportunity to be heard were afforded to Mr. Blight here. Judge

Westmore reviewed both Mr. Blight‟s original complaint and first amended complaint (“FAC”) 

and explained why the pleadings were lacking. Mr. Blight was given an opportunity to file a SAC 

to cure the deficiencies in his pleading. While he filed a SAC, the same basic deficiencies 

remained.

The Court also notes that, in his papers, Mr. Blight essentially confirms that his case is 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as he refers to his case being an “appeal . . . taken from 

state level to federal level.” Pet. at 2; see also Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 

2013) (“To determine whether the Rooker-Feldman bar is applicable, a district court first must 

determine whether the action contains a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court decision. A de 

facto appeal exists when „a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous 

decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision.‟”).

Finally, the Court notes that, to the extent Mr. Blight has moved to disqualify the 

undersigned from ruling on his motion, he has stated no valid reason to disqualify. The fact that 

 

1 A motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e) “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the 

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Mr. Blight did not file his motion within this timeframe but 

seems to suggest that he should be excused from the deadline because his health condition 

prevented him from timely filing. For purposes of this order, the Court assumes that equitable 

tolling is applicable and that Mr. Blight has health problems, as claimed in his papers but without 

any corroborating evidence.

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 25 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Mr. Blight is not satisfied with the undersigned‟s ruling is not a legitimate basis to disqualify. See, 

e.g., United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) (“not[ing] that the district judge 

properly rejected Sibla‟s request for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144” because “[a]n affidavit 

filed pursuant to that section is not legally sufficient unless it specifically alleges facts that fairly 

support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party that stems 

from an extrajudicial source”) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the Court hereby denies Mr. Blight‟s request for relief.

That being said, because the Court also deems Mr. Blight‟s filing a notice of appeal, the 

Court orders the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of Mr. Blight’s filing to the Ninth 

Circuit, along with a copy of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 25 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3