Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01808/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 16cv1808

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE WALLACE, P-48941,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-1808-BAS-PCL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

v.

CCII OLIVARRIA; CCII B. SELF; 

CIO R. ARMENDARIZ; LT. J. 

MCNEIL; D. ARGUILEZ,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Tyrone Wallace’s motion for 

reconsideration of this Court’s August 2, 2016 Order. (ECF No. 6.) In that Order, the 

Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or request to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that 

Order on the grounds that he is still waiting for the relevant prison officials to provide 

him his certified trust account statement. (ECF No. 6, 2:3–20.)

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available only under exceptional 

Case 3:16-cv-01808-BAS-PCL Document 7 Filed 08/11/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 16cv1808

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

circumstances. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 

2000); Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1994). In this 

case, reconsideration is unnecessary because the Court dismissed the case without 

prejudice—Plaintiff may refile his claims whenever he is ready to either (1) pay the 

required filing fee or (2) request to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, when 

Plaintiff does refile his complaint, he can at that time correct or add claims as he 

apparently would like to do. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting 

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, this too 

is inappropriate. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel as moot 

because Plaintiff had not commenced the action by paying the required filing fee or 

requesting to proceed in forma pauperis. Once Plaintiff has properly commenced the 

litigation, he can consider whether he wants to again bring a motion to appoint 

counsel.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

(ECF No. 6.)

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01808-BAS-PCL Document 7 Filed 08/11/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2