Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00444-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DALE BARGER, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

 

MUELLER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:16-cv-00444-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION 

PER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

(Doc. 7)

Plaintiff, Gary Dale Barger, a.k.a. Gary Francis Fisher, is a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 26, 

2016, the matter was dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon prepayment of the $400 filing 

fee because Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. (Docs. 5, 6.) 

Three months after the case was closed, Plaintiff filed an untitled document that the Court 

will construe as a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. In his motion for 

reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that: prison staff failed to give him a certified copy of his trust 

account statement (Doc. 7, pp. 2-3); that his mail is being tampered with (id., pp. 4-5, 7); that he 

has difficulty accessing the law library (id., p. 6); that he has been denied the right to review his 

C-file (id., p. 7); he asserts that he has filed numerous complaints, but if the Court will investigate 

them all and go back five years it will find that everything started with his mail being tampered 

Case 1:16-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 8 Filed 11/15/16 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

with (id., p. 8); that Scott Nicholas Graham attempted to murder1him at CSP-Sacramento and he 

feels he is in imminent danger because he was transferred back there and therefore he “should be 

exempt from the payment of charges from photocopies” (id., pp. 9-10); that he has asked for an 

Olsen Review, but has not received it (id., p. 11); Plaintiff asks “What is a strike?” and asserts 

that none of the complaints he has filed were malicious, he acknowledges that they may be 

repetitive and fail to state a claim, but all of his complaints “should be given a chance” (id., p. 

12); that “[t]he statute of limitations may have run its course” (id., p. 13); and that “[t]here could 

be no material issues of the (sic) fact” (id.). 

The history that led up to dismissal of this action is straightforward. Along with his 

Complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) This request 

was reviewed and, on May 5, 2016, a findings and recommendation issued to deny Plaintiff’s 

application because he had three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and did not plead facts that 

were sufficient to the meet the eminent danger exception. (Doc. 4.) This findings and 

recommendation was served on Plaintiff2and provided him with a twenty-one day deadline to file 

objections. (Id.) Despite the passage of more than two months, Plaintiff did not file any 

objections. Thus, on July 26, 2016, an order issued adopting the findings and recommendations

which closed the action, and judgment was entered that same date. (Docs. 5, 6.) 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and upon 

such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by 

an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.” 

 

1

Here again, Plaintiff uses the words “attempted murder,” but such conclusory assertions need not be accepted. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). At best, it appears Plaintiff’s use of such words in this filing, as in his 

pleadings, is a thinly veiled attempt to skirt the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See also Doc. 4.)

 

2

It is noted that, there was some confusion at the prison based on Plaintiff using an alias in this action “Gary Dale 

Barger” instead of his real name “Gary Francis Fisher.” (See May 17, 2016 docket entries.) However, orders were 

re-served on Plaintiff on May 17, 2016 with clarification via Plaintiff’s inmate number and identifying his use of 

aliases. (Id.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 8 Filed 11/15/16 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Motions under Rule 60(b) “must be made within a reasonable time -- and 

for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the 

date of the proceeding.” Id. 

Relief under Rule 60 “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 citation omitted) (addressing 

reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). 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” previously, 

“what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown”

at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 

“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) (emphasis in original). 

Here, Plaintiff has presented neither newly discovered evidence nor an intervening change 

in the controlling law under which he should be granted in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff has 

demonstrated no viable basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

7) is DENIED and this case remains CLOSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 8 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 3