Currier v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD SCOTT CURRIER Case No.: 20cv227-LAB (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION

14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, et al. 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On March 2, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff Richard Currier’s two 19 motions to proceed in forma pauperis, certifying that his interlocutory appeal was 20 not taken in good faith, and ordering Currier to continue litigating this case. 21 Specifically, Currier was required to file an amended complaint that complies with 22 federal pleading standards. The order sua sponte extended the deadline for him 23 to do that, to March 24, 2020. 24 Currier has now submitted a document called “Notice of Filing a Proposed 25 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion [Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 201].” The 26 Court has accepted this for filing as a motion for reconsideration of the March 2 27 order. The body of the document also identifies itself as some kind of motion or 28 request. Attached to the main document is a proposed order granting a request for 1 judicial notice. Although the order says the motion is or will be set for argument, 2 Currier did not obtain a hearing date. This motion is not scheduled for argument or 3 hearing. 4 The request is difficult to understand, but apparently the gist of it is that 5 Currier disagrees with the March 2 order. The Court therefore construes it as a 6 motion for reconsideration of that order. 7 Currier apparently thinks he is being asked to produce evidence, and is trying 8 to do that by asking the Court to take judicial notice of his social security record, 9 which was attached to his state court complaint. He is not being asked to produce 10 evidence, and asking the Court to take judicial notice of documents is not a 11 substitute for filing a complaint that meets federal pleading standards. Currier is 12 bringing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and even if 13 Currier were to allege that he was receiving social security disability benefits at the 14 time Defendants discriminated against him, this is not the same as alleging he was 15 disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 16 1351, 1354 n.2 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “disability” is defined differently for 17 purposes of disability benefits and the ADA); Iceberg v. Martin, 2017 WL 396438, 18 at *7 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 30, 2017) (collecting cases). And even if the Court were 19 to take notice of the document, there are several other defects in his complaint that 20 this document has nothing to do with. 21 To the extent Currier is attempting to make other arguments or requests, 22 either they pertain to matters not before the Court (such as admissibility of 23 evidence neither party offered and the Court did not request), or he has not raised 24 them clearly enough. Currier’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 25 Currier must still comply with the Court’s March 2 order. This means, among 26 other things, that he must file an amended complaint that complies with federal 27 pleading standards. He cannot rely on the Court or Defendants to look through the 28 record and plead his case for him. He should assume that no more requests for 1 ||reconsideration of that order will be considered or granted. If Currier does not file 2 amended complaint as ordered, his ADA claim may be dismissed for failure to 3 || prosecute. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 5, 2020 7 / tM 4. (Ba ny 8 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28