Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04726/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04726-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUTIERREZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04726-HSG 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, 

DISMISSING ACTION

Re: Dkt. No. 21

Plaintiff, an inmate at Deuel Vocational Institution, filed this pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On January 6, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 12. On March 6, 2020, the Court found that plaintiff is 

prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); revoked plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status; and ordered plaintiff to pay the $400 filing 

and administrative fee in full by April 3, 2020 or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 19. The 

deadline to pay the filing fee in full has passed, and plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. 

Plaintiff has, however, filed a request for an extension of time to file objections to the 

Court’s March 6, 2020 order, which the Court construes as a request for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to N. D. Cal. L. R. 7-9.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, before the entry of 

judgment, any party may seek reconsideration of any interlocutory order on the grounds that (1) a 

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of 

1 The Court’s March 6, 2020 order was not a report issued by a magistrate judge. Pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b), when a dispositive matter is referred to a magistrate judge, a magistrate judge 

must make findings and recommendations and the parties have fourteen days from the service of 

the findings and recommendations to file objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Because the Court’s 

March 6, 2020 order was not a report issued by a magistrate judge, plaintiff must seek leave of 

Court to file a motion for reconsideration of this order. N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9.

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 22 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the interlocutory order, or (2) after the time of the entry of the interlocutory order, new material 

facts emerged or a change of law occurred, or (3) there was a manifest failure by the court to 

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the court. A party 

must first obtain leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration. N. D. Cal. L. R. 7-9. Plaintiff 

has not alleged that any of the grounds set forth in Local Rule 7-9 exist here. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES his request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

The Court has DENIED plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

and petitioner has not paid the full filing fee. This action is therefore DISMISSED without 

prejudice to re-filing upon payment of the full filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/28/2020

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 22 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2