Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00180-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL F. SCHULZE, CASE NO. CV-F-05-0180 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

DENIAL TO PROCEED IN FORMA

vs. PAUPERIS

(Doc. 25.)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, et al,

Defendants.

 /

This Court issued it October 7, 2005 order to deny without prejudice plaintiff Michael F.

Schulze’s (“plaintiff’s”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed September 30, 2005, on grounds

plaintiff provided insufficient information to ascertain whether he is entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court construed plaintiff’s motion as an attempt to circumvent timely service of a

summons and amended complaint on defendants United States Marshals Service (“USMS”)and Drug

Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).

On October 17, 2005, plaintiff filed his papers to seek reconsideration of denial to proceed in

forma pauperis. Plaintiff fails to make sufficient showing for reconsideration. Reconsideration is

appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error,

or there is an intervening change in controlling law. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon

v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2741 (1994).

Under this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(k), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “what new

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 27 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 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

2

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion.”

In his papers, plaintiff incorrectly suggests that this Court will locate USMS and DEA if plaintiff

is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court has repeatedly informed plaintiff that despite

whether plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, plaintiff, not this Court, is responsible to locate and

provide accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and amended complaint.

See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-1422 (1993). Plaintiff is again admonished that this Court

will recommend dismissal of this action as to defendants on whom plaintiff fails to accomplish

service of the summons and amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s orders and

F.R.Civ.P. 4.

Moreover, this Court has granted plaintiff to November 21, 2005 to serve the summons and

amended complaint on the USMS and DEA. Such extension renders moot plaintiff’s reconsideration

motion to the extent it addresses service of the summons and amended complaint.

On the basis of good cause, this Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to reconsider denial to proceed

in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00180-AWI-EPG Document 27 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2