Jameson v. Rawers, et al., et al

Filing 130

ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration (ECF No. 129 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
BARRY S. JAMESON,

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-5593-LJO-MJS (PC)

8
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

(ECF NO. 129)
SCOTT P. RAWERS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 12, 2003. (ECF No. 1.)

15

On August 2, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

16

and directed him to submit the applicable filing fee on the ground that he had suffered

17

three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff

18

appealed, No. 07-17015. (ECF No. 43.) On February 15, 2008, the United States Court

19

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

20

appeal. (ECF No. 46.) On March 12, 2008, the Ninth Circuit assessed the appellate filing

21

fee, in incremental amounts, against Plaintiff’s prisoner account pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). (ECF No. 47.)

23

On December 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s denial of leave to

24

proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that one of the cases relied on did not count as

25

a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 53.) Thereafter, the case proceeded to

26

summary judgment in favor of Defendants, (ECF No. 116), and the case was closed.1

27
1

28

Plaintiff appealed the ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 118.) The Ninth
Circuit affirmed. (ECF No. 124.)

1

On May 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff’s request for a refund of his

2

filing and docketing fees for his appeal in No. 07-17015. (ECF No. 122.) The Ninth

3

Circuit vacated its order authorizing the collection of filing and docketing fees from

4

Plaintiff’s prisoner account (ECF No. 47), and directed that any funds already collected

5

be refunded to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 122.)

6

Plaintiff filed in this Court a request for a return of the filing and docketing fees,

7

and asked that the refund be sent by check or money order to his wife in Sacramento.

8

(ECF No. 123.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a refund of the filing and

9

docketing fees, but denied his request to have the refund sent to his wife in Sacramento.

10

(ECF No. 127.) The Court ordered that any refund be sent to Plaintiff at his address on

11

record with the Court.

12

Plaintiff subsequently filed a change of address listing his wife’s Sacramento

13

address (ECF No. 128), as well as a motion for reconsideration, asking that the refund

14

be sent to the Sacramento address because he soon will be paroled.

15

The Financial Unit of the United States District Court, Eastern District of

16

California, Fresno Division has advised the Court that all filing and docketing fees paid in

17

relation to Appeal No. 07-17015 were refunded on June 10, 2014.

18
19

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 129) as moot.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2014

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2