Tierney

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Reconsideration 16 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/8/12. (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive 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
In Re:

)
)
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,
)
#A0201434,
)
_____________________________ )

NO. 1:12-cv-00532 SOM/KSC
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the October 24,
2012, order denying reconsideration of the order dismissing his
action.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration based on: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3)
fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4)
the voidness of a judgment; (5) the satisfaction, release, or
discharge of a judgment, or the reversal or vacation of a prior
judgment upon which a ruling is based, or inequities in applying
a judgment prospectively; or (6) any other reason justifying
relief from the operation of the judgment.
60(b)(1)-(b)(6).

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 60 reconsideration is generally

appropriate in three instances: (1) when there has been an
intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has come
to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. School District No. 1J v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff’s action was dismissed without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because Plaintiff has accrued three
strikes and did not allege imminent danger of serious physical
injury at the time that he filed his complaint.
Order, ECF #5.

See Dismissal

Plaintiff now argues that the court erred by

stating that jurisdiction for his claims lies in Arizona rather
than Hawaii.

Plaintiff also claims that other inmates have been

assaulted and murdered in Arizona.
Plaintiff fails to convince the court to reconsider the
October 2, 2012, Dismissal Order or the October 24, 2012, Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration.

See ECF #5, #15.

Plaintiff’s broad claims that other inmates have been harmed in
Arizona are not specific enough to plausibly suggest that he is
under a credible threat of imminent danger of serious physical
injury.

Nor does Plaintiff provide details of when he was denied

emergency medical or dental care or who is personally responsible
for this alleged denial.

And, although dismissal was not based

on improper venue, Plaintiff fails to persuade the court that
venue for his vague claims lies in Hawaii.

Plaintiff’s new

Motion Under Rule 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the October
24, 2012 Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration, is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 8, 2012.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

In re: Michael C. Tierney, 1:12-cv-00532 SOM/KSC; ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION;
G:\docs\prose attys\Recon\DMP\2012\Tierney 12-532 som (2d R60, recon of recon).wpd

3