Hill v. Katavich et al

Filing 33

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Third 32 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 TONY HILL, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:15-cv-00631-LJO-JLT (PC) v. KATAVICH, et al., ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) (Doc. 32) Defendants. 14 15 BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Tony Hill, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 19 On August 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations (“the F&R”) to: (1) dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee since he is not 20 eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) due to having at least three 21 strikes prior to the filing of this action and failing to show that he was in imminent danger of 22 serious physical injury at the time he filed suit; and (2) to deny Plaintiff's requests for injunctive 23 relief via transfer to another facility. (Doc. 12.) This was served on Plaintiff and contained 24 notice that objections were due within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition, 25 which was construed as his objection(s). (Doc. 13.) The Order Adopting the Findings and 26 Recommendations found that dismissal was appropriate since Plaintiff was ineligible to proceed 27 in forma pauperis and had failed to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 18.) 28 1 1 On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal that was processed to the Ninth 2 Circuit that same day. (Docs. 20, 21.) On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for 3 reconsideration of this Court’s order dismissing the action and entering judgment against Plaintiff 4 which was denied. (Docs. 23, 25.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal on March 1, 5 2016 (Doc. 27), and denied Plaintiff’s request to reinstate his appeal on January 19, 2017 (Doc. 6 28). 7 Plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen this case on October 16, 2017, which was denied 8 by order that issued on October 17, 2017. (Docs. 29, 30.) The order that denied Plaintiff’s 9 second motion for reconsideration explicitly stated that further motions for reconsideration will 10 not be entertained and will be summarily stricken upon filing. (Doc. 30, p. 4.) On October 26, 11 2017, Plaintiff filed a document, though titled as an affidavit, it clearly seeks, once again, to 12 reopen this action. (Doc. 32.) ORDER 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s affidavit seeking to reopen this action, filed on October 26, 2017 14 15 (Doc. 32), is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record in this action.1 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 30, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that Plaintiff’s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. However, no further relief is available for Plaintiff via this action. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?