Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05929/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05929-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Hamilton
Plaintiff
Bill Lockyer
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL LOCKYER, et. al.

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5929 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND TO CONDUCT

DISCOVERY (Doc. 21.)

George Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California. The case was transferred and received in this Court on July 6,

2004. This Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on March 30, 2005. Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint on October 7, 2005. (Doc. 18). 

On November 2, 2006, the Court screened the Amended Complaint and issued an Order

dismissing with leave to amend. The Court again identified the same deficiencies it previously

identified in the original complaint and again informed Plaintiff how he could cure these

deficiencies. The Court also granted Plaintiff thirty days in which to submit a Second Amended

Complaint. 

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 22 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and request for leave

to conduct discovery. In this pleading, Plaintiff states that the Court “misconstrued” facts in his

Complaint. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

A review of the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend shows that Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff continued to name inappropriate

Defendants. Besides Bill Lockyer, who Plaintiff now states he seeks to sue in his personal

capacity, Plaintiff continues to name the Personnel Department of Justice and a Database and

Databank. Plaintiff was informed that these are not “persons” within the meaning of Section

1983. 

The Courts Order of Dismissal also indicates that Plaintiff has failed to link any of the

named Doe Defendants, including Bill Lockyer, to an act or omission giving rise to his claims for

relief. Without such linkage, any Defendant cannot know what the allegations are against him or

her. 

Finally, the Order of Dismissal notes that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is not in

compliance with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will not rewrite

the entire Order dismissing with leave to amend here. The Order is self explanatory, details the

deficiencies in the Amended Complaint, provides Plaintiff with the relevant law so he can

provide the facts to support his allegations and granted Plaintiff sufficient time to cure these

defects. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to conduct discovery to discover the identities of the Doe

Defendants is also Denied. As stated in the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend, the

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 22 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Court is required to screen the Complaints to ensure that they state a cognizable claim for relief. 

Only after such a finding will the Court order service of the Complaint and subsequently issue an

order opening discovery. Accordingly, the Motion for leave to conduct discovery is also

DENIED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED;

2. The Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 22 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3