Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRON A. PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FUJIOKA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02079 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 41)

Plaintiff Myron A. Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2013.

On August 26, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff 

received an extension of time and the fee is now due on or about October 24, 2015.

On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without 

further briefing.

As judgment has not been entered, the Court construes this as a motion pursuant to Rule 

60(b).

A. LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations 

marks and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation” of that which was already considered 

by the Court in rendering its decision. United States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal. 2001). 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 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 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, 

when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “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.” Local Rule 230(j).

B. DISCUSSION

In his motion, Plaintiff simply repeats his argument that the PLRA is unconstitutional, 

albeit with additional argument. For example, Plaintiff argues that the “PLRA’s obstacles to 

meritorious lawsuits are undermining the rule of law in our prisons and jails, granting the 

government near impunity to violate the rights of prisoners without fear of consequences.” ECF 

No. 41, at 3-4. 

Plaintiff presents no arguments that warrant reconsideration. The Court has previously 

explained that the Ninth Circuit has rejected an argument that the PLRA is facially

unconstitutional. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s arguments 

that the PLRA should impose less drastic sanctions, such as requiring a litigant to “seek leave of 

court or certify that the claims have factual and legal basis before filing,” are unavailing. ECF 

No. 41, at 9.

Plaintiff’s challenge to the PLRA ignores the fact that prisoners deemed to have three 

strikes have a litigation history that warrants restrictions on new actions, and that such 

restrictions are rationally related to legitimate government interests. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 

F.3d 1176, 1180-1181 (9th Cir. 1999). He also ignores the fact that prisoners are often given 

numerous opportunities to correct claims in actions that are eventually deemed strikes. 

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that he has been barred from court “solely due to him 

being poor and incarcerated,” he is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in cases that do 

not involve imminent danger based on his litigation history. ECF No. 41, at 6. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

Plaintiff SHALL submit the filing fee within fourteen days of the date of service of this 

order. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 3