Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06357/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06357-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JoAnne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Percy James Pearce
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Although plaintiff’s supplement went well beyond what

I ordered him to do, I GRANT his motion for leave to file the

additional exhibits and will consider them to the extent

appropriate.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY JAMES PEARCE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social

Security Administration,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-6357 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On June 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration relating to this Court’s June 7, 2007 Order

dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

After requesting plaintiff to supply me with an exhibit

discussed but not provided with his motion, plaintiff

submitted the requested exhibit and an additional, lengthy

motion for leave to file two additional exhibits.1

Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides a mechanism for parties to

Case 3:06-cv-06357-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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

request leave of court to file a motion to reconsider

interlocutory orders. See Hawks v. Kane, 2006 WL 3526743, at

*1 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Under local rule 7-9, a party may seek

leave to file a motion for reconsideration any time before

judgment.”). I entered final judgment in this matter on June

15, 2007. The judgment having “adjudicated all of the claims

and the rights and liabilities of the parties in [the] case,”

Civ. L. R. 7-9(a), reconsideration is not available under

Local Rule 7-9.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), however, allows a

party to seek alteration or amendment to a judgment if filed

within ten days of its entry. Rile 59(e) is a proper vehicle

for a party to seek substantive reconsideration of a summary

judgment ruling, Tripati v. Hanman, 845 F.2d 205 n.1 (9th Cir.

1988), and also may be utilized in the context of a motion to

dismiss. See Zarcone v. U.S., 2004 WL 2196560 (N.D. Cal.);

see also Greening v. U.S., 1994 WL 648027 (D. Or.)

(reconsidering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). Because

plaintiff’s motion was filed within ten days of entry of the

judgment, I will consider his motion under Rule 59(e).

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion

may be granted: 1) the motion is necessary to correct

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is

based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or

previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary

to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe

R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal

Case 3:06-cv-06357-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 5
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 Exhibit B consists of a single page entitled

“Homeless Verification.” The document verifies that plaintiff

utilized the services of the St. Vincent de Paul Society day

center and/or shelter services from December 1, 2003 through

June 15, 2007. Plaintiff also claims that he was unaware of

the document prior to the issuance of my Order and, therefore,

was omitted through no lack of diligence. I will consider

Exhibit B based on plaintiff’s representations.

3

quotations and citations omitted). Rule 59(e) “offers an

extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.

2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s motion rambles and is unpersuasive. As for

the new documents plaintiff provides, Exhibit B purports to

demonstrate defendant’s “perjury” by impeaching dates on

which certain hearings were alleged to have been opened and

continued.2 Insofar as the document demonstrates that his

association with St. Vincent de Paul’s in San Francisco began

in December 2003, he also argues that the Oakland social

security hearing in fact could not have occurred. The dates

“impeached,” however, had no impact on my conclusion that I

lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint. Certainly,

the inclusion of some incorrect dates by the ALJ in his order

or by the defendant in her papers does not amount to

“perjury” which, in turn, proves up a wide-ranging conspiracy

to deprive plaintiff of his benefits. Moreover, plaintiff’s

unsworn assertion that no Oakland hearing occurred

contradicts his own sworn declaration submitted in opposition

to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Pearce Decl. at 2. 

More broadly, plaintiff argues that I committed clear

Case 3:06-cv-06357-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 5
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 Pearce argued this point in his previous papers, and

I explicitly analyzed the issue in my June 7 Order. See Order

Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, at 6-7. It is

inappropriate to repackage this argument in a motion for

reconsideration. See Washington v. USDC Southern California, 2007 WL 1795783, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Nevertheless, I will

consider plaintiff’s contention. 

4 Exhibit C consists of a single page of notes, written

by an unknown author on an unknown date, relating to

plaintiff’s social security case. Exhibit D is a copy of a fax

sheet prepared by an advocate representative at the General

Assistance Advocacy Project. The comments request access to

plaintiff’s file prior to a January 2002 ALJ hearing. Exhibit

E consists of a single page of notes, apparently written by

plaintiff himself, around the time of the various hearings. 

5 In particular, plaintiff still fails to explain why

he ignored defendant’s notices requesting explanation as to why

his appeal of the ALJ decision was filed untimely.

4

error in dismissing his complaint. His contentions center on

an alleged inability to develop the record before the ALJ.3

According to Pearce, Exhibits C, D and E provide evidence of

his attempts to develop the record and to obtain access to

his social security file.4 Plaintiff, however, does not

explain why these documents were not supplied during briefing

on the motion to dismiss and, therefore, should not be

considered. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890 (“A Rule

59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have

been raised earlier in the litigation.”). Worse, the

documents constitute unsworn hearsay. In any event,

plaintiff’s arguments and evidence in no way undermine my

conclusion that the defendant’s administrative processes

provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and that

plaintiff failed to present a colorable due process claim.5

The remainder of plaintiff’s motion either reiterates or

Case 3:06-cv-06357-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 5
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

6 Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that various

governmental actors conspired to “obliterate” the record of an

earlier hearing and to otherwise prevent him from pursuing his

claim. These arguments were presented and considered in

relation to the motion to dismiss. To the extent plaintiff

presents new evidence on the alleged conspiracy, I conclude

that his assertions are without factual or legal support. 

7 As an alternative to reconsideration, plaintiff

requests that I grant his “Motion to File Plaintiff’s Notice of

Appeal.” I need not grant plaintiff permission to file an

appeal. If plaintiff wishes to appeal dismissal of his

complaint, he will need to comply with the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure and, in particular, Rules 3 and 4. 

5

attempts to expand upon arguments presented in defending

against dismissal, addresses the merits of his disability

claim, or argues for equitable tolling. Motions for

reconsideration are not to be used to reargue or repackage

previously presented arguments. See Washington v. USDC

Southern California, 2007 WL 1795783, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

Plaintiff’s arguments going to the merits of his claim are

simply irrelevant to the threshold issues resolved on

defendant’s motion for dismissal. Plaintiff’s argument for

equitable tolling was addressed in my previous Order. See

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, at 7 n.10. In

any event, nothing presented here constitutes newly

discovered evidence or reveals errors of law or fact.6

Because plaintiff’s motion does not present cause for

reconsideration of my dismissal of his complaint, his motion

is DENIED.7

Dated: August 3, 2007 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\PEARCE\ORD.DENY.RECONSIDER.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-06357-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/03/07 Page 5 of 5