Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING 5 Motion to Reconsider, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/31/2011. CASE SHALL REMAIN CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

-MJS (PC) Ransom v. Secretary of CDCR, et al.

Doc. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BRYAN A. RANSOM, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff Bryan Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 16 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2011, the Court found that, due 17 to Plaintiff's litigation history, he was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis only if the 18 alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because Plaintiff's 19 Complaint did not contain allegations sufficient to satisfy the imminent danger exception, 20 the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling it 21 contemporaneous with payment of the $350.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) The case was 22 closed. (ECF No. 4.) 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider arguing that the Complaint 24 sufficiently alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. (ECF No. 5.) 25 "A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 26 unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, 27 or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 28 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., (ECF No. 5) Defendants. / CASE SHALL REMAIN CLOSED ORDER DENYING RECONSIDER MOTION TO CASE NO. 1:11-cv-68-OWW-MJS (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . . " of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The basis for Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is his disagreement with the Court's determination that his Complaint did not allege facts showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time this action was filed. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's ruling is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with prejudice. This case shall remain closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-