ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION MOTION (ECF 16)

In both his first and second amended complaints, plaintiff Brian Kakowski brought an access-to-courts claim, claiming that defendants in this case interfered with a different, ongoing lawsuit against prison personnel for failure to protect him from Hepatitis-C exposure. (ECF 6-1, at 10–11; ECF 13, at 4.) Each time, this Court dismissed the access-to-courts claim on screening, finding Kakowski‘s deficient allegations left the Court “to guess at the remedy being sought.” (ECF 12, at 8 (cleaned up); ECF 14, at 4 (cleaned up).) Now Kakowski seeks reconsideration, pointing out that in his second amended complaint he added allegations that he settled his prior case “for 500 dollars” and “would like to be compensated for” the 4,500-dollar difference between his expected and actual settlement amount. (ECF 16, at 1.) Overlooking for the moment Kakowski‘s fatal failure to set forth an appropriate basis for reconsideration—such as “newly discovered evidence,” “clear error,” or “an intervening change in controlling law“—Kakowski‘s access-to-courts claim falls short on the merits. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

“[T]he underlying cause of action” in an access-to-courts claim “is an element that must be described in the complaint just as much as allegations must describe the official acts frustrating the litigation.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (cleaned up). Simply put, “the complaint should state the underlying claim” “just as if it were being independently pursued.” Id. at 417. Because Kakowski‘s second amended complaint contains no additional facts regarding the underlying failure-to-protect claim, his access-to-courts claim fails. Reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated: April 14, 2025

Hon. Andrew G. Schopler

United States District Judge