Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-15/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE REQUESTING

RECONSIDERATION

The Court is in receipt of defendants Greg Cannedy and Mike Sobek’s “Motion for

Leave Requesting Reconsideration,” filed March 27, 2008, by which defendants seek

reconsideration of the Court’s order of March 19, 2008 (“Order”). Said order denied

defendants’ “Application for Leave to Set Hearing for Summary Judgment” (“Application”),

by which defendants had requested the Court consider a second motion for summary

judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

Defendants fail to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration of the Court’s

Order. See Civil L.R. 7-9 (b) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration of interlocutory

order). Rather, defendants repeat the arguments made in their Application. See Civil L.R.

7-9 (c) (providing motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration may not “repeat”

argument). Accordingly, for this reason alone, the motion will be denied.

Moreover, defendants’ primary argument, specifically, that consideration of a second

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 116 Filed 03/31/08 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

1

Defendants also argue their second motion for summary judgment was filed on a

timely basis. This argument is unavailing because the Court did not deny the Application

on the ground the second motion for summary judgment was untimely, but, rather, on the

ground defendants failed to show good cause exists to consider, for the second time,

whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, in light of there being triable issues of

fact readily apparent from the record made in connection with the first motion raising that

defense.

2

motion on the issue of qualified immunity would conserve judicial resources because the

facts “are not in dispute,” (see Defs.’ Mot. at 2:22), remains unpersuasive. As explained in

the Order, the record before the Court at the time of defendants’ first motion for summary

judgment on the issue of qualified immunity discloses the existence of at least one material

triable issue of fact, specifically, whether defendants could have reasonably believed

plaintiff was “intoxicated at the time of his arrest for public intoxication, let alone intoxicated

to such a degree that he was ‘unable to exercise care for his . . . own safety or the safety of

others.’” (See Order at 2:3-7 (citing Cal. Penal Code § 647(f).) In the instant motion,

defendants fail to acknowledge or address the state of the record, and, instead, assert in

conclusory fashion that no facts are in dispute.1

Accordingly, defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 116 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2