Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02534/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02534-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

W.D. FLIENT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JAIL MEDICAL SERVICES,

Defendant /

No. C-06-2534 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 10, 2006, the Court denied plaintiff W.D. Flient’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee no later than June 9, 2006. On

June 14, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice because plaintiff

had not paid the filing fee. Also, on June 14, 2006, the Clerk entered judgment on the

order of dismissal.

The Court is now in receipt of a letter, filed June 27, 2006, in which plaintiff asserts

the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis was “an error” and requests

reconsideration of the judgment dismissing the above-titled case.

“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a

final judgment . . . for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether
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

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or

discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise

vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;

or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b).

By order filed April 14, 2006, the Court identified several inconsistences in plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis and found that, in light thereof, the Court could not

conclude plaintiff was unable to pay the filing fee. The Court did, however, afford plaintiff

the opportunity to file, no later than April 28, 2006, a supplemental declaration to explain

the inconsistencies, and stated that “[i]f plaintiff fails to file a supplemental declaration

within the time provided, or if plaintiff timely files a supplemental declaration but fails to

adequately explain therein his financial circumstances, the Court will deny the application.” 

(See Order, filed April 14, 2006, at 2.) Plaintiff responded to the Court’s April 14, 2006

order by filing a letter, which letter, as explained in the Court’s order of May 10, 2006,

lacked any evidentiary value and, in any event, not only failed to explain the inconsistencies

identified by the Court but also raised new questions as to the veracity of statements in

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s letter requesting reconsideration is, again, unverified and therefore lacks

any evidentiary value. Further, plaintiff again fails to address any of the inconsistencies

identified by the Court. Finally, plaintiff fails to identify any cognizable ground for

reconsideration, nor does the file reflect any such ground.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge