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)

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