Patel v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Raj Patel filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order. That earlier order granted Patel’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and screened his First Amended Complaint. The court had dismissed that complaint but expressly allowed Patel to amend it.

Reconsideration request

Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, a party must obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. The court therefore treated Patel’s filing as a motion for permission to seek reconsideration. To obtain permission, Patel had to show reasonable diligence and one of three circumstances: a material difference in the facts or law that could not previously have been known; new material facts or a change in law after the order; or a clear failure by the court to consider material facts. The court found that none of those conditions was met.

The court also rejected Patel’s assertion that it had dismissed his case permanently. It stated that the earlier order had given him permission to amend. The court explained that Patel did not need reconsideration to file a Second Amended Complaint because the earlier order had already allowed him to do so.

Other requests

Patel asked the court to appoint counsel or require opposing counsel to help him draft a complaint. The court said requiring opposing counsel to assist him was inappropriate. Regarding appointed counsel, the court explained that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary and permitted only in exceptional circumstances. It found that Patel had an exceedingly low likelihood of success on the merits, that the issues were not particularly complex, and that he had shown an ability to explain his claims. The court therefore declined to appoint counsel.

Patel also asked the court to provide a more definite statement of the facts or structure needed for each claim and, alternatively, to give him more time to file another amended complaint. The court said it was not its role to tell him how to draft his pleadings. It treated the Second Amended Complaint, filed as ECF No. 18, as the operative pleading and stated that Patel could not file another amended complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Patel’s motion for reconsideration, as treated by the court as a motion for permission to file a reconsideration motion. It stated that it would screen the Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a separate order. This order did not decide the claims in that complaint.