Payne v. Fujioka et al

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/22/15. Filing Fee Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MYRON A. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11
12

FUJIOKA, et al.,
Defendants.

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv02079 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Document 41)

14

Plaintiff Myron A. Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15
16

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2013.
On August 26, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma

17
18

pauperis status and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff

19

received an extension of time and the fee is now due on or about October 24, 2015.
On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to

20
21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without

22

further briefing.
As judgment has not been entered, the Court construes this as a motion pursuant to Rule

23
24

60(b).

25

A.

26

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

27

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

28

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
1

1

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

2

marks and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

3

disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation” of that which was already considered

4

by the Court in rendering its decision. United States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d

5

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

6

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist.

7

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on

8

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules,

9

when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or different facts or

10

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

11

what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

12

B.

13

DISCUSSION
In his motion, Plaintiff simply repeats his argument that the PLRA is unconstitutional,

14

albeit with additional argument. For example, Plaintiff argues that the “PLRA’s obstacles to

15

meritorious lawsuits are undermining the rule of law in our prisons and jails, granting the

16

government near impunity to violate the rights of prisoners without fear of consequences.” ECF

17

No. 41, at 3-4.

18

Plaintiff presents no arguments that warrant reconsideration. The Court has previously

19

explained that the Ninth Circuit has rejected an argument that the PLRA is facially

20

unconstitutional. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s arguments

21

that the PLRA should impose less drastic sanctions, such as requiring a litigant to “seek leave of

22

court or certify that the claims have factual and legal basis before filing,” are unavailing. ECF

23

No. 41, at 9.

24

Plaintiff’s challenge to the PLRA ignores the fact that prisoners deemed to have three

25

strikes have a litigation history that warrants restrictions on new actions, and that such

26

restrictions are rationally related to legitimate government interests. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169

27

F.3d 1176, 1180-1181 (9th Cir. 1999). He also ignores the fact that prisoners are often given

28

numerous opportunities to correct claims in actions that are eventually deemed strikes.
2

1

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that he has been barred from court “solely due to him

2

being poor and incarcerated,” he is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in cases that do

3

not involve imminent danger based on his litigation history. ECF No. 41, at 6.

4

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

5

Plaintiff SHALL submit the filing fee within fourteen days of the date of service of this

6

order. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3