Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00270/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00270-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

3:19-cv-0270-MMA-KSC 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURI SANA-KABISA YOUNG, 

CDCR #J-03193, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MOORE, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:19-cv-0270-MMA-KSC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. No. 9] 

On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff, Zuri Sana-Kabisa Young, a state inmate currently 

incarcerated at the California State Prison - Los Angeles County located in Lancaster, 

California, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. 

In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See Doc. No. 

5. On March 4, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissed the entire action for failing to pay the full statutory and 

administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). See Doc. No. 6. 

The Court also certified that an IFP appeal from the Court’s Order would be frivolous 

Case 3:19-cv-00270-MMA-KSC Document 10 Filed 03/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:19-cv-0270-MMA-KSC 

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

and therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Id.

 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 4, 2019 Order. See

Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff does not dispute the Court’s finding that he has accumulated three 

(3) strikes as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) but argues that he should be permitted to 

pay the required initial civil filing fee in installments. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), district courts have 

the power to reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Under Rule 59(e), it is 

appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling if “(1) the district court is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial 

decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 

law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 

2009). Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; 

or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other 

reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration “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.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

B. 28 U.S.C. 1915 

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to 

pursue civil litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(2). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 

1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 

. . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or 

Case 3:19-cv-00270-MMA-KSC Document 10 Filed 03/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:19-cv-0270-MMA-KSC 

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

detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 

provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter 

“Andrews”). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed 

IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter 

“Cervantes”) (under the PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful 

suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]”). The 

objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner 

litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, 

which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 

a claim,” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the 

district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 

action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2008). As stated above, the Court found in the March 4, 2019 Order that 

Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 In his Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow him to pay the filing fee in 

installments. However, this is clearly a privilege that is provided pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 only when a prisoner is permitted to proceed IFP, which Plaintiff is not. If the 

Court were to permit Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in installments, this would be the 

equivalent of proceeding IFP – and a direct contradiction to the requirements of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. 

Moreover, a motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff 

is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding 

Case 3:19-cv-00270-MMA-KSC Document 10 Filed 03/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:19-cv-0270-MMA-KSC 

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

precedent, or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan 

Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d ed.) 

(“[R]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should 

be used sparingly.”). Mindful of its duty to “construe pro se pleadings liberally,” 

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court has 

considered Plaintiff’s motion and finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide any verifiable 

factual or evidentiary support for any basis under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

that would justify vacating the Court’s March 4, 2019 Order and the Clerk’s Judgment 

entered contemporaneously therewith. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration, CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and 

therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and 

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to once again close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: March 19, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:19-cv-00270-MMA-KSC Document 10 Filed 03/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4