Manago v. Cate et al
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/1/2012 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, this court's 8/15/12 order is AFFIRMED; however, plaintiff is librally granted an additional 14 days to submit the $350.00 filing fee. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
STEWART MANAGO,
11
Plaintiff,
12
No. 2:11-cv-2891 GGH P
vs.
13
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER
/
Introduction
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action filed pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. As noted previously, plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the
19
undersigned. See Docket #’s 4 and 14. By order, filed on August 15, 2012, plaintiff’s in forma
20
pauperis status was revoked as improvidently granted, and plaintiff was directed to pay the
21
$350.00 filing fee in full within thirty days. Instead, on August 24, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion
22
for reconsideration of the August 15th order. Docket # 17. Plaintiff has inappropriately invoked
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in his motion inasmuch as there has as yet been no final judgment in this
24
case.
25
\\\\\
26
\\\\\
1
1
2
Standards For Motions To Reconsider
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,
3
Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),
4
considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j)
5
requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or
6
different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
7
grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which
8
provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is
9
substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly
10
erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d
11
391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.
12
denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).
13
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the
14
alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle
15
permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present
16
“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United
17
States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260,
18
1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa.
19
1991). These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and
20
promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.
21
In the instant action, plaintiff continues to re-visit arguments the court has
22
previously addressed. The determination of this court is now the law of the case and plaintiff’s
23
continued efforts to circumvent his status as three-strikes litigant within the meaning of 28
24
U.S.C. § 1913(g), who, in this case, does not meet the “imminent danger” exception of that
25
statute will not be re-addressed. The court will, however, allow plaintiff an additional fourteen
26
days to pay the filing fee. Failure to do so within that time will result in dismissal of this action.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Upon reconsideration, this court’s order of August 15, 2012, is affirmed;
3
2. However, plaintiff is liberally granted an additional fourteen days from the date
4
of this order to submit the $350.00 filing fee; failure to do so within that time will result in
5
dismissal of this action.
6
DATED: November 1, 2012
7
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
GGH:009
10
mana2891.ord4
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?