Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0131-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerryal J. CULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 7, 2009.
    Jerryal J. Culler, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerryal J. Culler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Culler’s action after warning him that failure to submit the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application would result in the dismissal of the case. See id. at 847-50 (holding that the filing fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), are constitutional).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Culler’s motion for reconsideration because he did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear error, or manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; setting forth requirements for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.