Smith v. California State Prison - Sacramento et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/12/14 DENYING 66 Motion for Recovery of Costs. (Manzer, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNARD L. SMITH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:10-cv-00766-KJM-DAD v. ORDER CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON– SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 On March 12, 2012, the court closed this action, finding plaintiff had not 17 18 exhausted his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 64.) On July 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a 19 document captioned “Motion to Recover Cost.” (ECF No. 66.) In the motion, plaintiff “ask[s] 20 this [c]ourt to dismiss all fees and cost related to this matter . . . .” (Id. at 1.) Although plaintiff 21 cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in support of his motion, that rule is completely 22 unrelated to plaintiff’s request. The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion for 23 reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order requiring plaintiff to make monthly payments to 24 satisfy his obligation to pay a filing fee. (ECF No. 10.) As explained below, the court DENIES 25 plaintiff’s motion. 26 I. 27 28 DISCUSSION District courts “possess[] the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen [] to be sufficient.” City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. 1 1 Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation 2 marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration, however, “should not be granted, absent highly 3 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 4 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 5 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 6 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 7 Here, plaintiff has presented no new evidence, has not shown the court committed 8 a clear error or that there is an intervening change in the law. In his motion, plaintiff argues that 9 the “fees against him causes him to live in extreme poverty.” (ECF No. 66 at 1.) From plaintiff’s 10 inmate statement report, it appears that as of July 2014, the current balance owed on his 11 obligation is $294.00 of the $350.00 filing fee. (Id. at 4.) The record is devoid of any evidence 12 based on which the court could reconsider the prior order requiring plaintiff to make monthly 13 payments. (ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 14 II. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: November 12, 2014. 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?