Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Floyd Bourn
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN FLOYD BOURN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1824-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Steven Floyd Bourn, is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. The case was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local 

Rule 302(c)(21). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the order dismissing his first 

amended complaint with leave to amend.1

 ECF No. 13. For the reasons discussed the below the 

court denies plaintiff’s motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A. In Forma Pauperis 

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

 

1

 Plaintiff also filed his state court application to proceed in forma pauperis on November 24, 

2014. ECF No. 15. The court will disregard plaintiff’s state court application however, because 

it has already granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 4
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

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. Motion for Reconsideration 

Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction 

to modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Generally stated, reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening change in 

controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In the absence of new evidence or a change in the law, a party may not use a motion for 

reconsideration to raise arguments or present new evidence for the first time when it could 

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th 

Cir. 2003); see also Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Motions 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 4
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

to reconsider are also “not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to ‘rehash’ arguments 

previously presented.” United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997), rev'd 

on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998). Ultimately, a party seeking reconsideration 

must show “more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases 

and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the 

moving party's burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 

(E.D. Cal. 2001). 

ANALYSIS 

The court declines to reconsider its order dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

with leave to amend because plaintiff has failed to point to any new evidence or intervening law 

that renders its previous order manifestly unjust. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration merely 

rehashes matters asserted in his first amended complaint and does not address the underlying 

problem with his claims, that defendant is immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment. 

See Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825, 835 (2d Cir. 1985). As the court has explained, motions to 

reconsider must not be based on arguments that the court has already addressed. Navarro, 972 F. 

Supp. at 1299. Accordingly, the court declines to reconsider its order dismissing plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that the filing of his interlocutory appeal with the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in no way stays this action. Thus, regardless of the pending appeal, 

plaintiff is required to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order. Failure to 

do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without leave to amend 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s November 24, 2014, motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 13) is denied; and 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules of Practice, and the court’s October 23, 2014, order (ECF No. 12); the amended complaint 

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

Complaint;” plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to 

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without leave to amend. 

DATED: December 1, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 4