Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01120-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT J. ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THOMPSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1120-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1

 On June 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis because he is a three-strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF 

No. 5. Plaintiff was given 21 days within which to pay the $400 filing fee for this action. Id. 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to pay the filing fee within 21 days would result in dismissal. Id. 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Instead, he has filed a second motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, arguing that he is not a three-strikes litigant. ECF No. 6. The court construes 

this filing as a motion for reconsideration. So construed, the motion is denied and the case is 

dismissed. 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:16-cv-01120-EFB Document 7 Filed 07/13/16 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

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are 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.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate grounds for reconsideration of the June 16, 2016 order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his second motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, construed as a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6), is denied, and this action is 

dismissed. 

DATED: July 13, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01120-EFB Document 7 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 2