Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00540/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00540-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SHANNON O. MURPHY,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-0540 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the court’s order of

dismissal and judgment, entered on April 5, 2010. Plaintiff originally filed a motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on February 5, 2010. On March 2, 2010, the court denied the

in forma pauperis request and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the merits for failure to set

forth any discernible or actionable legal theories sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff was

given leave to file an amended complaint no later than April 1, 2010. The court entered a

final order of dismissal and judgment when plaintiff failed to timely file any amended

complaint by the April 1 deadline. Now, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s

dismissal and judgment, on grounds that, “due [to] a personal injury problem which has

caused serious pain and inconvenience the plaintiff to date 04/01/10," plaintiff will require

“more time to amend relevant case.” To that end, plaintiff has simultaneously submitted a

new amended complaint, and a new request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Preliminarily, plaintiff has failed to request leave to file a motion for reconsideration,

as required prior to the filing of an actual motion for reconsideration such as the one filed

here. See, e.g., Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Furthermore, in view of the existing judgment in the

action, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is also procedurally improper, since a request

Case 4:10-cv-00540-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

for both leave to seek reconsideration and for reconsideration itself must precede entry of

judgment in an action. Rather, the appropriate vehicle through which to request the relief

plaintiff seeks is a motion to re-open the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60. 

Notwithstanding plaintiff’s procedural deficiencies, the court will interpret plaintiff’s

request for reconsideration as a motion to set aside the judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Under Rule 60(b), “[t]he court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding” for certain specified reasons, including “mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect...”. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b).

Here, plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate that any mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect justifies plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff states only that he has “a personal injury problem” that has caused “serious pain

and inconvenience” to April 1, 2010. Critically, however, plaintiff does not state what that

injury problem was, when it occurred, the nature of any inconvenience to plaintiff, or explain

the manner in which such pain or inconvenience prevented plaintiff from complying with the

court’s order. Nor is any evidence submitted in support of plaintiff’s showing,

notwithstanding a curt reference to the “Hilltop Chiropractic & Wellness Center.” Having

thus failed to make a satisfactory showing, plaintiff has not stated any grounds that would

allow the court to grant plaintiff’s request pursuant to Rule 60(b). 

Moreover, it is also worth noting that, even if the court were to find plaintiff’s showing

under Rule 60(b) sufficient and grant the motion to re-open the judgment and vacate it in

order to allow plaintiff to proceed with the filing of his amended complaint, plaintiff’s

amended complaint remains fatally deficient. Although plaintiff’s amended complaint duly

sets forth separate causes of action that are properly labeled as fraud, general negligence,

discrimination, and unfair business practice claims, plaintiff’s complaint nonetheless fails to

specifically identify the statutory, constitutional, or military laws that form the basis of

plaintiff’s complaint, or the specifics of the conduct alleged to violate those laws. Nor does

Case 4:10-cv-00540-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the amended complaint allege any exhaustion of available intraservice remedies, to the

extent appropriate. Most significant, plaintiff’s complaint continues to lack any allegations

that specify with sufficient detail the wrongful conduct allegedly undertaken by each

particular defendant. Thus, even if plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b) were successful,

plaintiff’s amended complaint would still fail to cure the deficiencies previously identified by

the court. 

In sum, however, and for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration is hereby DENIED, and the previously entered dismissal and judgment

remain effective. To the extent plaintiff’s request is accompanied by a separately filed

application to proceed in forma pauperis and amended complaint, the in forma pauperis

application is DENIED as moot in view of the existing judgment in this case, and the

amended complaint, having been improperly filed, is hereby STRICKEN from the record, 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00540-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 3