Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05612/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05612-0/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

JASON SAUNDERS,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

C/O LOWRIMORE, et al. 

 Defendants.

1:97-CV-05612 OWW WJW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 32)

Before the court for decision is Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of an April 20, 2004 order dismissing this

prisoner’s civil rights case for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 32,

filed May 11, 2004.) 

On January 23, 2003, Magistrate Judge Hollis G. Best denied

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

Plaintiff to submit within thirty days the then-applicable $150

filing fee for a civil action. As of April 20, 2004, more than a

year later, the case docket did not reflect payment by Plaintiff

of the required fee. The case was dismissed for failure to

prosecute. (Doc. 30, filed Apr. 20, 2004) Plaintiff then filed

a motion for reconsideration, asserting that he did pay the

filing fee and requesting relief from the order of dismissal

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. 32.) 

Subsequently, the clerk of court produced a receipt indicating

Case 1:97-cv-05612-OWW -WMW Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 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

that Plaintiff actually paid the filing fee in this case on

August 12, 1998. (Doc. 33, filed August 2, 2004.)

Although Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) in support of his motion for reconsideration, it is more

appropriate in this case to apply Rule 60(a), which permits a

court to relieve a party from a judgment or order to correct

clerical mistakes:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts

of the record and errors therein arising from oversight

or omission may be corrected by the court at any time

of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and

after such notice, if any, as the court orders....

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(a). Here, it appears that the order of

dismissal was based upon a record-keeping error. Because

plaintiff timely paid his filing fee, it was not appropriate to

dismiss his complaint for failure to prosecute. 

The order of dismissal and the judgment, dated April 20 and

21, 2004, respectively, are VACATED. 

This case is REFERRED BACK to the now-presiding magistrate

judge, William M. Wunderlich, for screening of the operative

second amended complaint (Doc. 24) pursuant to the prisoner

litigation reform act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:97-cv-05612-OWW -WMW Document 35 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2