Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01826/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01826-4/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

TAHEE ABD RASHEED, aka

JAMES E. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S )

DEPT., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01826-OWW-YNP-SMS-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the August 4, 2009,

order dismissing this action pursuant to Local Rule 110 for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court

order. 

 On May 14, 2009, an order was entered, adopting the findings and recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge and denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was

directed to submit the $350 filing fee for this action. Plaintiff failed to do so, and on August 4,

2009, this case was dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110 for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing

fee. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Case 1:08-cv-01826-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 07/21/10 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

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. th

1983)(en banc). 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), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has th

held that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the th

clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration consists of Plaintiff’s continued argument that his

in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff sets forth no legal argument. Plaintiff

simply asks for reconsideration. Plaintiff has cited no new facts, new law, mistake, fraud, or

other extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to reconsideration. See

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 230(j). As such, Plaintiff is not entitled

to reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

the August 4, 2009, order dismissing this action is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01826-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2