Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

TATE, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-0511 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RESCIND THE ORDER

REVOKING IFP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

THE ORDER DENYING IFP

[Documents #31 and #32]

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Antonio Luis Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and has

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found Plaintiff

ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court

vacated the November 10, 2005 order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis, and the court ordered Plaintiff to submit the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30)

days.

On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to rescind the order revoking

Plaintiff’s IFP status. On February 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the

court’s Oder revoking IFP.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 th

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/06/08 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

(D.C.Cir. 1987). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). Reconsideration to be used to ask the court to rethink th

what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116

(D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the

Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). When filing a motion for

reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion

of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v.

Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). th

DISCUSSION

In both motions pending before the court, Plaintiff contends that the court erred by

revoking Plaintiff’s IFP status. Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that:

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. 

The court found that Plaintiff had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or

for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted at the time this action was filed. The

court also found that, in this action, Plaintiff did not allege imminent danger of serious injury. 

The motion for reconsideration does not contain any evidence or argument that Plaintiff has not

had three actions dismissed or that the complaint alleges he is in imminent danger. Rather,

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/06/08 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

Plaintiff restates the underlying facts of the case and provides evidence that the FBI had told

Plaintiff they would investigate this incident. Such arguments are not grounds for

reconsideration. 

Plaintiff does point out that the complaint alleges that Defendants physically assaulted

him and caused serious injury. However, the motion for reconsideration does not provide

evidence or argument that Plaintiff is currently in imminent danger or future injuries by

Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP.

Plaintiff also claims that the court somehow erred by having the undersigned revoke

Plaintiff’s IFP instead of having the assigned Magistrate Judge issue Findings and

Recommendations, to which Plaintiff could have filed objections. Local Rule 72-302(c)(17)

provides that the assigned Magistrate Judge should perform any duties allowed under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) & (3) in cases brought by a person in custody who is seeking relief authorized by 42

U.S.C. § 1983. However, Local Rule 72-302(d) provides that a District Court Judge may retain

any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate Judge. Thus, it was entirely proper for

the undersigned to revoke IFP without awaiting for Findings and Recommendations from the

assigned Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court finds that there are no grounds to grant

reconsideration.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the court’s order revoking IFP is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff SHALL submit the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days;

4. If plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty days, this action

will be dismissed, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 3