Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00553/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00553-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07-0553-rec.wpd 1 07cv0553

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE DIXON,

CDCR #F-00012

Civil No. 07-0553 LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 9]

vs.

PATRICIA ROBINSON, et al..,

Defendants.

On March 23, 2007, Bennie Dixon (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at the

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on May 30, 2007. On August 13, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Aug. 13, 2007 Order at 4.

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order because he believes that the

Court erred in determining that the action Dixon v. Hernandez, et al. S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

06-2656 H (AJB) was a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

////

////

Case 3:07-cv-00553-LAB-CAB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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

1

 However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule

7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....”S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.”

Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), however, only permits motions for re consideration within “30 days of the entry

of the ruling.” 

2

 Rule 59(e) motions must be filed “no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e). Under Rule 60(b), however, a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “not more than one year after the judgment,

order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration may be granted in

the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or

(3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason

justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07-0553-rec.wpd 2 07cv0553

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration.1 However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter

or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).2 See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489

U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.

1994). In Osterneck, the Supreme Court stated that “a postjudgment motion will be considered

a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a

decision on the merits.’” Id. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec.,

455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There

may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist.

No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

B. Discussion

In his Motion, while not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is arguing that the action

he filed in Dixon v. Hernandez, et al. S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 06-2656 H (AJB) should not be

considered a “strike” for § 1915(g) purposes. As the Court informed Plaintiff in the August 13

Order, a prisoner with three or more “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) may not proceed

IFP. See Aug. 13, 2007 Order at 2 (citing Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-00553-LAB-CAB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07-0553-rec.wpd 3 07cv0553

2005). The matter filed by Plaintiff in Dixon v. Hernandez, et al. S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 06-

2656 H (AJB) is clearly a strike because it was dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1). This constitutes a “strike” for § 1915(g) purposes.

In short, Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed to show clear

error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed to identify

any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court’s

Order. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 9].

The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00553-LAB-CAB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 Page 3 of 3