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)

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-