White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has seven (7) days from the date of this order to pay the filing fee and fee for process in the total amount of $416.00. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/11/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 DWIGHT MARSHON WHITE, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 2:15-CV-1587 JCM (NJK) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is plaintiff Dwight White’s motion to reconsider. (ECF No. 34). 14 Defendant the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “commissioner”) has not 15 filed a response and the time to do so has passed. 16 On September 8, 2016, Magistrate Nancy Koppe entered an order to show cause directing 17 plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should not (1) vacate the order granting his 18 application to appear in forma pauperis, and (2) either require plaintiff to pay the filing fee or 19 dismiss this case. (ECF No. 31). On September 14, 2016, plaintiff responded. (ECF No. 32). 20 On September 15, 2016, the magistrate entered an order revoking plaintiff’s in forma 21 pauperis status and finding that plaintiff must pay the full filing fee and expenses incurred in 22 effectuating process on his behalf no later than October 6, 2016. (ECF No. 33). 23 In the September 15th order, the magistrate found that plaintiff sought in forma pauperis 24 status in a prior case attempting to appeal the adverse social security determination that was also 25 at issue in the present case, that request was denied, and judgment was entered against plaintiff 26 when he failed to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 33 at 1). The magistrate further found that plaintiff 27 could not proceed in the present social security appeal in forma pauperis when plaintiff’s prior 28 case was dismissed and judgment was entered because he failed to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 33 at 1). Accordingly, the magistrate held that plaintiff could not relitigate that issue through the 2 filing of a new in forma pauperis application and that the application in this case should have been 3 denied as moot. (ECF No. 33 at 1–2). 4 Further, the magistrate ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee and fee for service in the total 5 amount of $416.00 no later than October 6, 2016. (ECF No. 33 at 2). The magistrate cautioned 6 that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (ECF No. 33 at 2). 7 Rather than complying, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking reconsideration of the 8 magistrate’s order. (ECF No. 34). In his motion, plaintiff argues that his debts and expenses 9 changed since the first application, “which effected his ability to pre pay the court fees in this 10 case.” (ECF No. 34 at 5). 11 A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 14 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 15 an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 16 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no 17 later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 18 Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however 19 “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 20 conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) 21 (internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments . 22 . . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.” Kona 23 Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff failed to show that “highly unusual 24 25 circumstances” are present to warrant reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to 3 4 5 6 7 8 reconsider (ECF No. 34) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has seven (7) days from the date of this order to pay the filing fee and fee for process in the total amount of $416.00. DATED October 11, 2016. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -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?