Million v. Walker et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/13/14 ordering plaintiff's opposition 10 is construed as a motion for reconsideration and, as such, is denied. Plaintiff is granted a final opportunity, within 21 days, to pay the statutory filing fee in full. There will be no further extension of time. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLIE LEE MILLION, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1383 AC P v. ORDER J. WALKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a document indicating that he “opposes” the court’s order denying 17 18 plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the “three-strikes” provision of 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). ECF No. 10. The court construes the filing as a request for reconsideration of 20 the Order filed April 4, 2014 (ECF No. 9).1 Plaintiff contends that he is subject to imminent 21 danger. Standards For Motions To Reconsider 22 Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay 23 24 of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 25 judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party 26 seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or 27 28 1 Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. ECF No. 6. 1 1 circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 2 the motion.” Id. The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the 3 decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different 4 evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would 5 result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); 6 see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 7 (1986). 8 Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or 9 amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the 10 unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which 11 might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp. 12 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); 13 Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings 14 “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial 15 efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009. 16 The court has previously observed that plaintiff failed to make the showing necessary to 17 satisfy the imminent danger of physical injury exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). At the time 18 plaintiff filed the instant complaint involving events at California State Prison-Sacramento, he 19 was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP). Plaintiff continues his effort to link the 20 allegations of the original complaint against the more than 35 CSP-Sacramento defendants to 21 conditions to which he is presently subject at SVSP. However, as plaintiff has been previously 22 informed, application of § 1915(g) turns on the allegations of the 2010 complaint. Plaintiff’s 23 opposition merely rehashes arguments that have been previously presented and rejected. Those 24 arguments remain unavailing. 25 Plaintiff will be granted one final opportunity to proceed in this action by paying the filing 26 fee in full within twenty-one (21) days, failing which this action will be dismissed. There will be 27 no further extension of time. 28 //// 2 1 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 10) is construed as a motion for reconsideration and, 3 4 5 6 7 as such, is denied; 2. Plaintiff is granted a final opportunity, within twenty-one days, to pay the statutory filing fee in full; failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action; and 3. There will be no further extension of time. DATED: May 13, 2014 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?