Tia v. Gribbin et al
ORDER DENYING 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ("Memorandum Pursuant to Case Dismissals"). Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on September 6, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to rec eive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PETER R. TIA,
MICHAEL GRIBBEN, et al.,
NO. 1:12-cv-00473 LEK/RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is Petitioner’s “Memorandum Pursuant
to Case Dismissals,”1 construed as a motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff apparently seeks reconsideration of the
August 27, 2012, Order dismissing his Complaint and action,
finding that he has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
Ord., ECF #4.
Plaintiff’s action was dismissed without prejudice
to Plaintiff’s commencing another action with concurrent payment
of the filing fee.
Plaintiff apparently complains that the court
failed to comply with Local Rule LR5.2, allegedly by failing to
label or log his exhibits 1-6.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should
not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the
This document is captioned for two cases, the present action and No.
1:12-cv-00383 HG, and has been filed in both actions.
district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in
the controlling law.”
McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014
(9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and emphasis omitted).
type of motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the court.”
Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1988)
(quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526
(9th Cir. 1983)).
A successful motion for reconsideration must
demonstrate some reason that the court should reconsider its
prior decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw.
Plaintiff provides no reason to reconsider the Order
finding that he has accrued three strikes and did not plausibly
allege imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he
filed the Complaint.
First, Local Rule LR5.2 requires litigants
to label documents submitted for filing as “ORIGINAL;” it does
not dictate any procedure for the court.
Second, Plaintiff did
not label his exhibits as ORIGINALS, as required by local rules.
The court, however, filed Plaintiff’s exhibits nonetheless.
ECF #1-1, #1-2, #1-3, #1-4, #1-5, #1-6.
The court is unable to understand any other bases for
reconsideration that Plaintiff may be asserting.
to set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
persuading this court to reverse its August 27, 2012 Order and
his Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 6, 2012.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
Tia v. Gribben, et al., 1:12-cv-00473 LEK/RLP; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; psas\recon\DMP\2012\Tia 12-473 lek (re. dsm C 1915(g)
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?