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)

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