Tia v. Gribbin et al

Filing 7

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

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII PETER R. TIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL GRIBBEN, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. _____________________________ ) NO. 1:12-cv-00473 LEK/RLP ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the court is Petitioner’s “Memorandum Pursuant to Case Dismissals,”1 construed as a motion for reconsideration. ECF #6. 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 1 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). This 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 decision. White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006). 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. See 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. 2 Plaintiff fails 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) 3

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?