Norman v. Federal Bureau Investigation

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:22-cv-07648-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

GARRED F. NORMAN,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

No. C 22-07648 WHA

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND
DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION

15
16
17

In its previous order, the Court reiterated that plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing

18

fee by January 18, 2023, would result in dismissal of the above-captioned action without

19

prejudice (see Dkt. No. 12; see also Dkt. No. 5). It is now January 19, 2023, and plaintiff has

20

still not paid. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

21

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the orders denying him leave to proceed in

22

forma pauperis and denying his motion to appoint counsel are DENIED. Our court of appeals

23

has held that “[m]otions for reconsideration may properly be denied where the motion fails to

24

state new law or facts.” In re Agric. Rsch. & Tech. Grp., Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir.

25

1990). It has also held that leave to proceed in forma pauperis may be denied at the outset if it

26

appears on the face of the complaint that the action is frivolous, and that appointment of

27

counsel for indigent civil litigants is limited to exceptional circumstances. Tripati v. First Nat.

28

Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th

Case 3:22-cv-07648-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2

1

Cir. 1980). Plaintiff offers no new law or facts to justify reconsideration. Moreover, the Court

2

remains convinced that this action is frivolous and that there are no exceptional circumstances

3

here. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

4

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is

5

advised that he may appeal this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within

6

sixty days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2023.

9
10
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2