Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02061/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02061-4/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

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02061-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”), filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The 

operative complaint was the amended complaint, in which Plaintiff sought damages for alleged 

civil rights violations stemming from his incarceration at SVSP. Dkt. 10. 

On August 10, 2018, in its Order to Show Cause, the Court found Plaintiff had “on 3 or 

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or 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 may be granted,” and further found Plaintiff was not “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Consequently, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 (g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed his response to the Order to Show Cause wherein he 

seemed to contest the Court’s finding that he is not “under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” within the meaning of section 1915(g). Dkt. 19. 

On March 15, 2019, the Court determined that Plaintiff had not shown cause why this case 

should not be dismissed and IFP should not be denied under Section 1915(g), stating as follows:

Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s twenty-seven-page, singlespaced handwritten response is difficult to decipher as it is 

disorganized and filled with challenges to his conditions of 

confinement during various time periods of his incarceration at 

different prisons ([California State Prison]-Corcoran, California 

Medical Facility, Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”), SVSP, Kern 

Valley State Prison) from 2010 through 2018, including his various 

Case 4:18-cv-02061-YGR Document 34 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 3
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

periods of hospitalization at medical facilities at these prisons. See 

id. Importantly, Plaintiff does not contest that the dismissals cited in 

the Order to Show Cause fall within the definition of section 1915(g). 

As mentioned, he does appear to be arguing that he should be allowed 

to proceed IFP because he is in “imminent danger,” see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) (providing for “imminent danger” exception), insofar as he 

alleges that he has suffered excessive force by prison officials at DVI 

in June of 2010 and also at CSP-Corcoran in October of 2012. None 

of these alleged incidents of excessive force occurred at the prisons 

where Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed his complaint 

(California Men’s Colony) and his amended complaint (California 

State Prison-Los Angeles County). From what the Court can decipher 

from his response, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not otherwise 

shown that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury or 

subject to an “ongoing danger” at the time he filed either his

complaint or amended complaint. See Abdul-Akbar, 239 F.3d at 312. 

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown cause why 

this case should not be dismissed and IFP should not be denied under 

Section 1915(g). 

In sum, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to be heard on the question 

of whether the instant action is subject to dismissal under section 

1915(g), see Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120-21, and his response to the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause fails to establish that section 1915(g) 

does not apply. 

Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to 

Plaintiff’s refiling his claims in a new case in which he pays the filing 

fee, and the amended complaint, filed May 11, 2018 (dkt. 10), is 

hereby STRICKEN. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed IFP are DENIED. 

Dkt. 9, 12.

Dkt. 24 at 2-3. Thus, in its March 15, 2019 Order, the Court dismissed the action without 

prejudice to bringing in a paid complaint and issued judgment. Dkts. 24, 25.

On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice to appeal. Dkt. 28.

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Motion to Vacate Judgment [Pursuant 

to] F.R.C.P. section 59(e) and Request for Complaint and Record Excerpts and Exhibits Filed 

Therewith for Appeal Briefing.” Dkt. 31. Because Plaintiff has already filed his appeal, his 

request for copies of the complaint and exhibits is DENIED as moot. Dkt. 31. Thus, the Court 

will address his motion to vacate judgment, which is construed as a motion for reconsideration. 

Where the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, as here, a motion for 

reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 

60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because 

Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment, as is required for a Rule 

Case 4:18-cv-02061-YGR Document 34 Filed 12/27/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

59(e) motion, it will be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by

due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse 

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying 

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when ‘it is no 

longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,’ or when there is any other 

reason justifying relief from judgment.” Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. 

Mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s order, or belief that the Court is wrong in its decision, are not 

grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other provision of Rule 60(b). “‘[T]he major 

grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the 

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 

United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

The Court finds nothing in Plaintiff’s allegations in his motion for reconsideration that 

merits reconsideration. In his two-paged motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not elaborate 

on any reasons for reconsideration, and instead he states he relies on the “moving papers”

previously filed in this matter, which the Court has already considered. Dkt. 31 at 2. Thus, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations present no grounds that warrant reconsideration. Therefore, 

the Court reaffirms its dismissal of his action pursuant to section 1915(g). Accordingly, his 

motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. 31.

This Order terminates Docket No. 31.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

December 27, 2019

Case 4:18-cv-02061-YGR Document 34 Filed 12/27/19 Page 3 of 3