Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121-19/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01121-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 61.)

ORDER RESOLVING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

COPIES

I. BACKGROUND

Howard Young (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2007. 

(Doc. 1.) 

On June 21, 2010, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either (1) notify the

court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant Barron on the retaliation claim, or (2)

file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the court in the order, within

thirty days. (Doc. 55.) On July 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration or

clarification of the court’s order. (Doc. 61.) Plaintiff also requests copies of his motions for his

records. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 65 Filed 07/12/10 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

1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” L.R. 230(j).

Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to proceed with all of the claims in his second

amended complaint. Plaintiff addresses each of his claims and argues that the court’s findings in

the June 21, 2010 screening order are erroneous and the claims should have been found

cognizable. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the

court to reverse its prior decision. Plaintiff is advised that his remedy is to file a third amended

complaint, setting forth his claims and curing the deficiencies described by the court in the June

21, 2010 screening order. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied, and no other

motions for reconsideration of the June 21, 2010 order shall be considered.

III. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Plaintiff also requests further clarification of the court’s June 21, 2010 screening order.

However, plaintiff has not explained how the court’s order is unclear. Plaintiff is advised to

review the order as to each claim and comply with the order by either (1) notifying the court he is

willing to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the court, against defendant Barron for

retaliation, or (2) filing a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the court

in the order. 

IV. MOTION FOR FREE COPIES

Plaintiff also requests free copies of the motion for reconsideration and the motion for

extension of time he filed on July 1, 2010. In forma pauperis status does not include the cost of

copies, and the Clerk does not ordinarily provide free copies of documents to parties. Copies up

2

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 65 Filed 07/12/10 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

to 20 pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this court upon request and prepayment of the

copy fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to 1

furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. Plaintiff has

not shown good cause for the Clerk to provide him with copies of these motions without

prepayment. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for copies shall be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is RESOLVED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for copies is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies up to 20 pages may be made by the Clerk’s Office at a charge of $.50 per page. For larger copy

1

orders, contact Attorney’s Diversified Service by writing to them at 741 N. Fulton Street, Fresno, CA 93728, by

phoning 1-800-842-2695, by faxing a request to 559-486-4119, or by leaving a voice mail at 559-259-8544.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 65 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3