Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01227-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEXTER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01227 MCE DB P

ORDER

On December 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court's 

order issued November 21, 2019. (ECF No. 16). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be 

denied.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

The order plaintiff asks the court to reconsider directs plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing 

fee within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 14 at 2). The order to pay the fees is based upon the 

court’s finding that plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)1

and that he was not in any imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time that he filed the 

 

1

 The court takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff was determined to be a three-strikes 

litigant in Brown v. Sagireddy, No. 2:17-cv-2041 KJM AC P (“Sagireddy”). (See Sagireddy, 

ECF No. 14). A court may take judicial notice of court records. See United States v. Howard, 

381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of 

accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned).

Case 2:19-cv-01227-MCE-DB Document 20 Filed 02/05/20 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

instant complaint. (See ECF Nos. 4, 14). Plaintiff has admitted that he is a three-strikes litigant. 

(See ECF No. 1 at 2).

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff does not contest his three-strikes status, nor 

does he contest the finding that no imminent danger existed at the time he filed the complaint. 

(See generally ECF No. 16). Instead, plaintiff states that the magistrate’s screening found that the 

claims in his complaint were “poorly plead [sic] or failed to state a claim.” (Id. at 7). As a result, 

he argues, he should be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id. at 7). He 

contends that the undersigned’s adoption of the magistrate’s findings and recommendations 

should be reconsidered with these alleged facts in mind. (See generally id. at 3). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay 

of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 

judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j)(3) requires that a party 

seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or 

circumstances . . . which . . . were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist 

for the motion.” Id. The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which provides that the 

decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different 

evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would 

result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981)

(citations omitted); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

III. DISCUSSION

In the instant action, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the issue is not whether plaintiff is 

able to state a claim in the complaint.2 On the contrary, a review of the magistrate judge’s July 

12, 2019, findings and recommendations – the undersigned’s adoption of which is at issue herein

 

2

 In any event, because plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), to consider the merits of plaintiff’s complaint prior to him paying the $400.00 filing fee 

would be improper.

Case 2:19-cv-01227-MCE-DB Document 20 Filed 02/05/20 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

– indicates that the magistrate’s order did not reach the question of whether plaintiff’s complaint 

states a claim. The order simply found that plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant, and it determined 

that plaintiff’s attempts to starve himself did not constitute proper exigent circumstances that 

would warrant a waiver of his obligation to pay the filing fee. (See ECF No. 4 at 2-3). 

Thereafter, the undersigned determined that the magistrate’s findings were supported by the 

record and by analysis. (See ECF No. 14 at 1).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration makes no argument contesting the court’s finding 

that he is a three-strikes litigant. (See generally ECF No. 16). The motion also fails to contest the 

court’s finding that plaintiff was not in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. (See

generally id.). The core issues that should have been addressed in plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration have not been addressed.

IV. CONCLUSION

In sum, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration offers no new or different facts to support it. 

Neither substantially different evidence, nor new controlling authority has been presented, and 

plaintiff has provided no evidence that this court’s adoption of the magistrate’s findings and 

recommendations was either clearly erroneous or would result in injustice. See Handi Investment 

Co., 653 F.2d at 392; see also Waggoner, 767 F.2d at 593. Because plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration provides no evidence that warrants reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 

2019, order, it shall be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed 

December 11, 2019 (ECF No. 16), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-01227-MCE-DB Document 20 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 3