Gray v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Hon. William Alsup denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
JON GRAY,
15
16
No. C 13-03513 WHA
Plaintiff,
14
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant.
17
/
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
18
19
On October 8, 2013, the undersigned judge adopted Magistrate Judge James’ report and
20
recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders
21
(Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff, however, was given an opportunity to seek leave to file a new
22
complaint if he paid his filing fee and provided proof of service by NOVEMBER 5, 2013, AT
23
NOON.
24
On November 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying
25
his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This order notes that plaintiff states in his motion for
26
reconsideration that he is “unemployed and presently is not receiving net income” (Br. at 1).
27
Yet, he also states in the same motion that he “was recently transferred by his employer to work
28
in San Jose full time . . . .” (id. at 2) (emphasis added). Setting aside this possible contradiction,
plaintiff has failed to show sufficient cause to reverse the previous order denying his IFP status.
1
Plaintiff has failed to file a motion seeking leave to file a new complaint and failed to
2
pay his filing fee by November 5, 2013. Thus, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
3
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: November 6, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?