Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-0583 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On January 15, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions. ECF No. 36. 

On February 8, 2019, pursuant to the court’s order, counsel for defendants filed a declaration and 

an accounting of costs the Office of the Attorney General had incurred to prepare defendants’ 

motion for sanctions. ECF No. 37. On March 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter 

the order granting sanctions.1

 ECF No. 38. For the reasons stated below, the court will deny 

//// 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s motion to amend was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See 

ECF No. 38 at 1. However, this rule relates to the reconsideration of final judgments issued, not 

general orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, the court considers plaintiff’s motion to 

amend a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230(j). 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 40 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 4
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 

plaintiff’s motion. It will also order that plaintiff be sanctioned in the amount of $1000.00. 

I. RELEVANT FACTS 

 A. Imposition of Sanctions 

 On January 15, 2019, the court found that plaintiff’s “consistent failure to adhere to court 

rules, his intentional filing of altered paperwork with the court, and his filing of false allegations 

regarding defendant Powell and the Office of the Attorney General, were designed to harass and 

to cause unnecessary delay,” and that plaintiff’s actions had “needlessly increased the costs of 

litigation in this matter.” ECF No. 36 at 6. Statements plaintiff had made to the court regarding 

defendant Powell and the Office of the Attorney General, as well as those regarding his attempts 

to access the prison law library, were determined to be unsubstantiated and lacking in evidentiary 

support. See id. 

 Given these findings, the court determined that plaintiff had violated Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(3). See ECF No. 36 at 6. As a result, sanctions were 

determined to be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1), 11(c)(4), and Local 

Rule 110. See id. 

 B. Defense Counsel’s Accounting Statement 

 The accounting statement submitted by defense counsel declared that to prepare the 

motion for sanctions, he and his supervisor billed approximately $4,420.00. See ECF No. 37 at 2. 

This, counsel contended, was a conservative estimate. See id. Counsel proposed that plaintiff be 

directed to pay the sanctions amount over time through his trust account, using the same 

guidelines inmates use to pay their filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See id. at 3. 

 C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

 Plaintiff’s “motion to amend or alter judgment,” filed March 6, 2019, which the court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration, asserts that sanctions order should be reconsidered 

because plaintiff was hospitalized in March 2019. See ECF No. 38 at 2. As a result, his access to 

the law library and his ability to make copies and access writing supplies were restricted, and he 

was unable to properly and timely address the court’s January 2019 order granting defendants’ 

//// 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 40 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 4
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 

motion for sanctions. See id. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion offers no substantive reasons why the 

sanctions order was improper. See generally id. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 A. Plaintiff’s 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). Reconsideration is not to be used, however, to ask the court to 

rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. 

Ariz. 1998). “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 court 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). 

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,” and “why the 

facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). 

 Plaintiff’s motion provides no substantive arguments in support of reconsideration. See 

generally ECF No. 38. Plaintiff identifies no new or different material facts, and claims no legal 

error. Instead, the motion provides excuses for plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s January 

2019 order, and it relies for that purpose on documents that significantly predate that order. See 

id. at 3-7. Accordingly, the motion will be denied. 

 B. Amount of Sanctions 

 The court accepts defense counsel’s accounting of its costs as both accurate and 

reasonable. Nonetheless, in light of plaintiff’s status as a pro se prisoner, the court finds that 

sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 are sufficient to serve the interests of deterrence. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 11(b)(4) (stating sanctions must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 40 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

conduct). If defendants require a particular form of order to facilitate incremental collection of 

these sanctions from plaintiff’s prison trust account, they may submit a proposed order within 14 

days. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s “motion to amend or alter judgment,” ECF No. 38, is DENIED; 

 2. Pursuant to ECF No. 36, plaintiff shall pay to defendants $1,000.00 in fees as 

sanctions; and 

 3. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, counsel for defendants may file a 

proposed order with the court that directs the manner in which the appropriate entity shall collect 

the sanctions amount from plaintiff’s prisoner trust fund account. 

DATED: August 1, 2019 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 40 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 4