Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02132/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02132-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2132-Deny Reconsideration.wpd 1 11cv2132 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. BRIDGEMAN,

CDCR #AD-9461, Civil No. 11-2132 WQH (PCL)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 6]

vs.

OFFICER J. PERALTA; OFFICER

LEGRAND; OFFICER POTTIN;

SERGEANT SHARP,

Defendants.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of

Judgment Regarding 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).” [ECF No. 6]. In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of the Court’s September 16, 2011 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

I.

Procedural History

On September 14, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed IFP.

Finding three prisoner civil actions filed by Plaintiff had been previously dismissed as

“frivolous, malicious, or [for] fail[ing] to state a claim,” the Court denied him leave to proceed

Case 3:11-cv-02132-WQH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/18/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2132-Deny Reconsideration.wpd 2 11cv2132 WQH (PCL)

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and dismissed the action for failure to prepay the entire

$350 civil filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). See Sept. 16, 2011 Order at 3-4 [ECF

No. 3].

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion

A. Standard of Review

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). Reconsideration

under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

B. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff argues that he suffers from a mental illness. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) As a result,

Plaintiff argues that the Court should disregard all the previous cases that he filed because he

was “never mentally able to state a case before the court that was not frivolous, incorrect,

malicious, or failed to state a claim.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff appears to claim, although it is not quite

clear, that the only civil complaint he has filed that has merit is the one that Plaintiff filed in this

action because he had assistance. (Id.) While Plaintiff may suffer from a mental illness, there

is no record before the Court that would demonstrate that any of the previous cases that were

deemed “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) would have resulted in a different outcome

if Plaintiff received outside assistance. Nor does the record reflect that any of the previous cases

deemed “strikes” were dismissed as a result of Plaintiff’s mental illness.

 In sum, a motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is

unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding

precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing Edwards v.

Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Thus, without more, the Court finds Plaintiff

Case 3:11-cv-02132-WQH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/18/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2132-Deny Reconsideration.wpd 3 11cv2132 WQH (PCL)

has failed to show that the Court rendered a “manifestly unjust decision,” and has further failed

to identify any intervening changes in controlling law which justify reconsideration of the

Court’s Order. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255; School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

III.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Judgment regarding

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ” [ECF No. 6] is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 18, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02132-WQH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/18/11 Page 3 of 3