Hollis v. Reisenhoover et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 17 Motion to Amend/Correct ; granting 21 Motion for extension of time; denying 22 Motion to Alter Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISON

7
8

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,

Case No. 17-cv-0326-NJV (PR)

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

NURSE REISENHOOVER, et. al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION;
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Docket Nos. 17, 21, 22

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to

15

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 19.) The

16

court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or face dismissal of the case. Id. Plaintiff has filed a

17

motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Doc. 22.) No judgment has been entered in this case.

18

Therefore the court will construe Plaintiff's motion as a motion for reconsideration.

19

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “Motions for Reconsideration”;

20

such motions are created by local rules or practice. In the Northern District of California, Local

21

Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory

22

orders made in a case prior to the entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). No pre-judgment

23

motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without leave of court. See Civil

24

L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave,

25

a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court before entry

26

of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of

27

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the

28

1

time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law

2

occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material

3

facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

4

Plaintiff has failed to show new law or facts that occurred after the court issued its order.

5

Therefore, the motion to alter or amend (Docket No. 22) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for an

6

extension is (Docket No. 21) is GRANTED and plaintiff must pay the full filing fee within

7

twenty-eight days of the issuance of this order or the case will be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion to

8

amend the complaint (Docket No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice and the court will consider

9

an amended complaint if plaintiff pays the full filing fee.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2017
________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2