Lopez v. Martin

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Construed 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SK, Case Administrator)**3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Valiente Lopez, Prisoner ID: 842706) Modified on 7/12/2017 - The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith (SK, Case Administrator).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 VALIENTE LOPEZ, NO: 4:17-CV-5015-RMP Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. LAWRENCE MARTIN, Defendant. 12 13 By Order filed June 9, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and 14 entered judgment. ECF Nos. 8 and 9. Mr. Lopez had failed to comply with 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) by providing a statement of his inmate account (or institutional 16 equivalent) for the six months immediately preceding the submission of his 17 complaint on February 16, 2017, and he did not pay the full filing fee to commence 18 this action as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 19 By letter received on June 30, 2017, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the 20 dismissal order, re-open his case and allow him to proceed. The Court liberally 21 construes this pro se letter as a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 10. See ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 1 1 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (endorsing liberal construction of pro se 2 pleadings). The motion was considered without oral argument in the context of the 3 full docket and the relevant law. 4 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief 6 from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 7 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented 8 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 9 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 10 Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School 11 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, 12 circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 13 On April 11, 2017, and June 9, 2017, documents were sent electronically to 14 Plaintiff at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. By letter received on June 30, 15 2017, Plaintiff advises the Court that he had been transferred to the Monroe 16 Correctional Complex shortly after he submitted his complaint in February 2017. 17 Plaintiff clearly and repeatedly was instructed that it was his responsibility to 18 keep the Court apprised of his current address. There is no record of Plaintiff 19 having notified the Court of his transfer to the Monroe Correctional Complex prior 20 to June 30, 2017. Therefore, Plaintiff alone is responsible for not receiving the 21 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 2 1 Order to Comply with Filing Fee Requirements issued on April 11, 2017, ECF No. 2 7. 3 The Court finds no basis to reconsider the Order entered June 9, 2017, and to 4 re-open this case. The dismissal of this action was without prejudice. If Plaintiff 5 wishes to file a new and separate action in which he promptly complies with the 6 filing fee requirements, he is free to do so. This action shall remain CLOSED. 7 IT IS ORDERED the construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 10, is 8 DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the superfluous application to 9 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 11, is STRICKEN. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 11 and forward copies to Plaintiff at his last known address. The Court certifies that 12 any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 13 DATED July 12, 2017. 14 15 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 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?