Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00989-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON 

PERSONNEL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20)

Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 6, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to 

proceed with this action. (ECF No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 

after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on 

November 25, 2019. (ECF No. 17.)

On December 1, 2019, the undersigned issued an order adopting the November 6, 2019 

findings and recommendations in full, denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and ordering Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) days 

from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 18.) In the December 1, 2019, the undersigned 

warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action would 

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/06/20 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

be dismissed. (Id. at 3.)

However, on December 27, 2019, rather than pay the $400.00 filing fee in full, Plaintiff 

filed “objections” to the Court’s December 1, 2019 order. (ECF No. 19.) Additionally, on 

December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed an “addendum to opposition” to the Court’s December 1, 2019 

order. (ECF No. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s December 27, 2019 “objections” and 

December 30, 2019 “addendum to opposition” as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

December 1, 2019 order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) permits 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 quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must demonstrate 

both injury and circumstances beyond [their] control[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires that, when a party makes a motion for 

reconsideration, the party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 

exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and 

“why the facts and 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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered 

by the [C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” 

United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff disputes the Court’s determination that he does not meet the imminent 

danger exception to the three strikes rule and contends that he is in ongoing danger of serious 

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/06/20 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

physical injury. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) However, Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any 

newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or established that 

there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn, 571 F.3d at 880. Instead, 

Plaintiff’s motion merely reiterates the same arguments previously presented to, and considered 

by, the Court. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision is not grounds for 

reconsideration. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 1, 

2019 order is denied.

As noted above, in the Court’s December 1, 2019 order, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 

$400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) days after service of the order. (ECF No. 18, at 

3.) Additionally, Plaintiff was warned in the December 1, 2019 order that failure to pay the filing 

fee in full would cause this action to be dismissed. (Id.) 

However, the twenty-one (21) day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has failed to pay 

the $400.00 filing fee in full. Further, Plaintiff has stated that he does not have $400.00 and 

“could never come up with it in here.” (ECF No. 19, at 1.) As such, this case cannot proceed. 

Therefore, this matter will be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 19, 20), is DENIED;

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with the Court’s December 1, 2019 order, (ECF No. 18), and his failure to 

pay the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending deadlines and close this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3