Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01910/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01910-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO FEDERAL COURT, et al ,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01910-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION 

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff, Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on 

November 30, 2015. On January 27, 2016, a findings and recommendation to deny plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in in forma pauperis issued. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 11) 

which were considered in the order that issued on March 3, 2016 (Doc. 12), adopting the findings 

and recommendation in full. On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion which appears to seek

reconsideration of the order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 13.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j)

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

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

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of

the prior motion.”

Case 1:15-cv-01910-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 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

2

“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,” and it “may not be used to

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly discovered

evidence, or an intervening change of law to support his motion. Plaintiff errantly argues that 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and, concomitantly 28 U.S.C. § 1915, only apply to actions brought pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 

1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff 

argues that neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nor 28 U.S.C. § 1915 apply to this action such that his 

application to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.

As correctly stated in the January 27, 2016 findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 applies to all civil actions brought by prisoners. Plaintiff errantly attempts to avoid 

application of § 1915 by asserting that this is a “statutory action” and not a “civil action.” 

However, any action brought by a prisoner for violation of a statute is a “civil action” for 

purposes of § 1915.

Having carefully considered this matter, the Court finds the order denying Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the 

order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed March 17, 2016 (Doc. 13), is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01910-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 2