Manago v. Holland et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/16/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEWART MANAGO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-01523-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 19.)

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Stewart Manago (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

22

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

23

on September 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed motion to proceed in

24

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 4.)

25

order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

On October 8, 2013, the court issued an

26

On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

27

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissing the case, without prejudice to refiling

28

with the submission of the $400 filing fee. (Doc. 12.)
1

1

On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stop prison officials from collecting

2

funds for payment of the filing fee for this action, and requested a refund of the partial filing

3

fee paid. (Doc. 18.) On March 31, 2015, the court issued an order granting the motion in part.

4

(Doc. 18.) The court’s order denied Plaintiff’s request for a refund, and granted Plaintiff’s

5

motion to stop collections from his prison account, vacating the order directing prison officials

6

to collect funds from Plaintiff’s trust account for payment of the filing fee for this action. (Id.)
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 31,

7

8

2015 order. (Doc. 19.)

9

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

10

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

11

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

12

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

13

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

14

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

15

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

16

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

17

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

18

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

19

his control . . . .”

20

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different

21

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

22

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

23

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

24

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

25

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

26

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

27

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

28

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already
2

1

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

2

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

3

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

4

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

5

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

6

Plaintiff asserts that on March 25, 2015, the inmate trust office removed another $10.00

7

from his prison account for payment of the filing fee for this case. Plaintiff seeks a refund of

8

the entire $70.00 that he asserts was deducted from his account. Plaintiff argues that the court

9

already knew the nature of his complaint by October 8, 2013, when it ordered the prison to

10

deduct funds for the filing fee. Plaintiff argues that if he refiles this case with payment of the

11

$400.00 filing fee, he will have overpaid the fee.

12
13

Plaintiff also makes arguments that the case should not have been dismissed on January
14, 2015, because his life was in danger when he filed the complaint.

14

Discussion

15

The court’s order of February 24, 2015, informed Plaintiff that “no further motions for

16

reconsideration [of the court’s order of January 14, 2015 revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

17

status and dismissing the case] shall be considered in this case.” (Doc. 16 at ¶III.2.) Therefore,

18

the court shall disregard Plaintiff’s arguments in the present motion that his in forma pauperis

19

status should not have been revoked and the case should not have been dismissed.

20

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in his motion for

21

reconsideration to induce the court to reverse its prior decision in the March 31, 2015 order.

22

Plaintiff has not submitted evidence, other than his own assertion, that funds were deducted

23

from his prison account on March 25, 2015 for payment of the filing fee in this case.

24

Moreover, the court record shows no payment received by the court for this case after

25

November 17, 2014. (Court Financial Record.) Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall

26

be denied.

27

///

28

///
3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on January 26, 2015, is DENIED;
and

2.

No further motions for reconsideration shall be considered in this case.

6
7

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4