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