Wilson v. Lesane et al
ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/17. Within 14 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the filing fee of$400.00. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID W. WILSON,
No. 2:16-cv-1795 JAM KJN P
LARRY LESANE, et al.,
Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of this court’s December 27, 2016 order.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay
of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of
judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party
seeking reconsideration of a court’s order must brief the “new or different facts or circumstances
[which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Id.
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff disputes the finding that he does not meet the
imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In support, plaintiff
claims that on December 9, 2016, plaintiff’s cell was set on fire while plaintiff was at group
therapy. On December 10, 2016, plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation. Plaintiff
then recounts a series of events, unrelated to the claims raised in his complaint,1 which he appears
to claim constitutes a series of “threats of inciting and provoking violence” against plaintiff.
(ECF No. 9 at 6.)
Plaintiff signed the complaint on July 27, 2016. The alleged fire was set in plaintiff’s cell
on December 9, 2016, over six months after the instant complaint was filed. Because the fire and
the subsequently-alleged events occurred after the instant complaint was written, plaintiff cannot
base his claim of imminent danger on such incidents. Rather, imminent danger must be that
danger facing plaintiff at the time he filed the complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Because application of § 1915(g) turns on the allegations of the July
2016 complaint, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is unavailing.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is denied;
2. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the filing fee of
3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.
DATED: June 28, 2017
/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
As set forth in the underlying findings and recommendations, in plaintiff’s 196 page complaint,
he alleges a laundry list of alleged program and activity deprivations for inmates housed in the M1 enhanced outpatient mental health program at California Medical Facility from September 29,
2015, to July 14, 2016. (ECF No. 6 at 3-4.)
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?