Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00799/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00799-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration after he received a letter from the Clerk

of the Court, dated April 17, 2007, informing plaintiff that the $150.00 filing fee has never

been paid in the instant action and is now past due. (See Motion & Letter dated Apr. 17,

2007, attached thereto.) 

A prisoner who is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action may not

proceed without prepayment of the entire filing fee. By contrast, a prisoner who is granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action is not required to prepay the filing fee, but

may instead make monthly payments from the prisoner’s trust account to the Clerk of the

Court until the entire fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), 1915(b)(1)-(2). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WAYNE ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 

Defendants. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 00-0799 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 4)

On March 7, 2000, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for his alleged

unconstitutional criminal conviction. Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. On March 23, 2000, the Court found the action was barred under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (See Order of Dismissal, filed Mar. 23, 2000, at 2.) 

Consequently, judgment was entered dismissing the action without prejudice and denying

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Judgment, filed Mar. 23, 2000.) Plaintiff

did not appeal the Court’s decision. On July 26, 2007, more than seven years after judgment

was entered in this matter, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

denying him in forma pauperis status.1

Where, as here, the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion

Case 3:00-cv-00799-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) is inapplicable to plaintiff’s motion, because the motion was

submitted after the time for filing such a motion had passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

(providing motion must be filed no more than ten days following entry of judgment). 

Under Rule 60(b), a movant may seek relief from a final judgment for six reasons: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that by

due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the

adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other

reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). A Rule 60(b) motion must be brought within a “reasonable time.” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). For reasons (1), (2) and (3), this means the motion must be made

no later than one year after the judgment was entered. See id. Thus, reasons (1), (2) and (3)

are inapplicable to plaintiff’s motion, because the motion was made more than seven years

after judgment was entered. Reasons (4) and (5) also are inapplicable to plaintiff’s motion,

because he does not argue the judgment is void or that it has been satisfied. 

The only reason applicable to plaintiff’s motion is reason (6), “any other reason

justifying relief.” This reason requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are

extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in

its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v.

Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff argues the Court should not have denied him leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the instant action because the Court granted him leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal in a subsequent action, and his financial status was the same at the time he

filed both actions. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the two in forma pauperis determinations

involved different considerations, and, as set forth below, neither determination was

erroneous. 

“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it

appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 

Case 3:00-cv-00799-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff filed Rogers v. Carey, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, on April 24,

2002. On December 29, 2005, the Court denied the petition on the merits. On March 13,

2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

3

Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In the instant action,

the Court denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it found the allegations

in plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief under Heck, which holds that a claim

for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 if the conviction has not previously been reversed or declared invalid. See Heck, 512

U.S. at 487. Plaintiff does not contend the Court erred when it determined that his complaint

was barred under Heck. Accordingly, under Tripati, the Court properly denied plaintiff leave

to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant action based on the complaint’s lack of merit,

regardless of his financial status at the time.

By comparison, when plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in

Rogers v. Carey, No. C 02-1982 MMC (PR) (“Rogers v. Carey”),2

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

the Court was required to consider both whether plaintiff was indigent and whether his

appeal was taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),(3). The Court found plaintiff

satisfied both requirements and, accordingly, under § 1915(a)(1) and (3), the Court properly

granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in that case.

Consequently, even if plaintiff’s financial status was the same when he requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant action and on appeal in Rogers v. Carey, the

Court did not err when it denied the former request and granted the latter, because it properly

considered different factors when making each determination. In sum, plaintiff has not

provided extraordinary grounds justifying reconsideration of the Court’s order denying in

forma pauperis status in the instant action. 

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-00799-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3