Coleman v. Forde et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 CertServ) (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2010)

Coleman v. Forde et al

Doc. 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RODERICK COLEMAN, 10 Plaintiff, v. 11
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C 09-5399 MHP (pr) ORDER

United United States District Court

12 FORDE - Deputy; et al., 13 14 15 Defendants. /

This pro se civil rights action was filed on November 17, 2009, at which time plaintiff

16 was notified that his action was deficient because he had not filed a completed in forma 17 pauperis application or paid the filing fee and was notified that he had to cure the deficiency 18 within thirty days. He did not do so. The action was dismissed on February 23, 2010 19 because plaintiff had failed to pay the filing fee or furnish a completed in forma pauperis 20 application. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, urging that sometimes he had 21 problems with legal mail at the county jail. He did not, however, show that he did not 22 receive the notice of the deficiency, and did not show that he ever filed a completed in forma 23 pauperis application, or even that he attempted to do so during the several months this action 24 was pending. He has not presented newly discovered evidence, the court did not commit 25 clear error or make a manifestly unjust decision as dismissal was proper, and there has not 26 been a change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 11 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994); Civil L.R. 7-9. Plaintiff's motion 2 for reconsideration is DENIED. (Docket # 7.) 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge 4 Dated: July 28, 2010 5 6 7 8 9 10

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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