Hill v. Katavich et al

Filing 36

ORDER striking Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Reconsideration 35 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/4/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

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 FOURTH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) (Doc. 35) Defendants. 14 15 16 BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Tony Hill, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations (“the 20 F&R”) to: (1) dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee since he is not 21 eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) due to having at least three 22 strikes prior to the filing of this action and failing to show that he was in imminent danger of 23 serious physical injury at the time he filed suit; and (2) to deny Plaintiff's requests for injunctive 24 relief via transfer to another facility. (Doc. 12.) This was served on Plaintiff and contained 25 notice that objections were due within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition, 26 which was construed as his objection(s). (Doc. 13.) The Order Adopting the Findings and 27 Recommendations found that dismissal was appropriate since Plaintiff was ineligible to proceed 28 in forma pauperis and had failed to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 18.) 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, for a third time, sought to 12 reopen this action and was struck from the record. (Docs. 32, 34.) On November 29, 2017, 13 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to reopen this case for the fourth time. (Doc. 35.) As previously 14 discussed, there is no further recourse available via this action. ORDER 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth motion seeking to reopen this action, filed on November 16 17 29, 2017 (Doc. 35), is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record in this action.1 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 4, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?