Hollis v. Reisenhoover et al

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Motions terminated: 25 MOTION re 19 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Marvin Glenn Hollis. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 10/19/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017)

Download PDF
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 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE v. 10 11 NURSE REISENHOOVER, et. al., Docket No. 25 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint. The court denied Plaintiff’s 15 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 19.) The 16 court denied Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend but granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of 17 time to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 24.) The court granted Plaintiff 28 days to pay the filing fee and 18 warned him that if he did not pay the fee the case would be dismissed. (Doc. 24.) Rather than 19 paying the filing fee, Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for relief from a judgment. (Doc. 20 25.) The case has not been dismissed, so the court will construe Plaintiff's motion as a motion for 21 reconsideration. 22 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “Motions for Reconsideration”; 23 such motions are created by local rules or practice. In the Northern District of California, Local 24 Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory 25 orders made in a case prior to the entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Therefore, post- 26 judgment motions for reconsideration are construed as motions to alter or amend judgment under 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment or order under Federal 28 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 1 No pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without 2 leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the 3 time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 4 presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is 5 sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did 6 not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new 7 material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by 8 the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory 9 order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff has failed to show new law or facts that occurred after the court issued its order. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Therefore, the motion for relief from a judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED. The 28 days granted to 12 Plaintiff to pay the filing fee have now passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Therefore, 13 this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2017 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?