Keeton v. Lynch et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/29/2022 DENYING 24 Motion for Reconsideration. This Action is DISMISSED because Mr. Keeton has not paid the $402 filing fees despite the court's warning. CASE CLOSED(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Tommy Roy Keeton,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:20-cv-2270-KJM-EFB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Jeff Lynch, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Tommy Roy Keeton moves for reconsideration of this court’s order adopting the

19

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See Mot. Recons., ECF No. 24. Specifically,

20

the court denied Mr. Keeton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay

21

the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of the order, cautioning him that failure to

22

do so will result in the dismissal of this action. See Order, ECF No. 23. “Under Rule 59(e), a

23

motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the

24

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

25

intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

26

(9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Since the court’s order, Mr. Keeton alleges that he has been

27

moved to a different facility where he has been deprived of a mattress, bedding, and clothing and

28

that he is facing retaliation from prison officials for filing this action. Mot. Recons. at 1–2.
1

1

While these allegations are troubling, Mr. Keeton still does not demonstrate he is eligible to

2

proceed in forma pauperis.

3

Thus, the court denies Mr. Keeton’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover, this action is

4

dismissed because Mr. Keeton has not paid the $402 filing fees despite the court’s warning. This

5

case is CLOSED.

6

This order resolves ECF No. 24.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: July 29,2022

10

2