Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00045-2/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAGNER, et al ,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 7)

Plaintiff, Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on 

January 11, 2016. On January 27, 2016, findings and recommendations recommending that 

plaintiff’s application to proceed in in forma pauperis be denied were issued by the assigned 

magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 5) which were considered in 

the order that issued on March 8, 2016 (Doc. No. 6), adopting the findings and recommendation 

in full. On March 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion which appears to seek reconsideration of the 

order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 24.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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 2

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j)

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of

the prior motion.”

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly discovered

evidence, or an intervening change of law to support his motion. Plaintiff errantly argues that 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and, concomitantly 28 U.S.C. § 1915, only apply to actions brought pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff argues that he 

seeks to compel federal officials to report and investigate “a crime concerning the U.S. President” 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 535, 591. Plaintiff thus argues that neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nor 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 apply to this action and that his application to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.

As correctly stated in the magistrate judge’s January 27, 2016 findings and 

recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all civil actions brought by prisoners. Plaintiff 

attempts to avoid application of § 1915 by asserting that this is a “statutory action” and not a 

“civil action.” However, any action brought by a prisoner for violation of a statute is a “civil 

action” for purposes of § 1915. 

Having carefully considered this matter, the undersigned finds the court’s previous order 

denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis to be supported by the record and 

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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 3

proper analysis.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, filed March 21, 2016 (Doc. No. 7), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3