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)

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