Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02657-0/pdf.json

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

---

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\JAH\06-2657-rec.wpd 1 06cv2657

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

CDC #C-56483, Civil No. 06-2657 JAH (PCL)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 13]

vs.

A. COTA, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 4, 2006, Jimmie Stephen (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated

at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California and proceeding pro se, filed acivil

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but instead submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

On March 13, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP as barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to

pursue civil litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). 

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-02657-JAH-PCL Document 15 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 However, Local Rule 7.1(i) does permit motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule

7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part....”S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.”

Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), however, only permits motions for re consideration within “30 days of the

entry of the ruling.” 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\06-2657-rec.wpd 2 06cv2657

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to

bar a prison inmate from proceeding IFP:

. . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of

reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312

(9th Cir. 1997). 

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff had at least three prior prisoner

civil rights actions dismissed in the Southern District of California on the grounds that they were

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. See March 13, 2007 Order at 3-4. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] was denied and the action was dismissed for failing to pay the initial

filing fee.

On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Imminent Danger Exception”

which the Court has liberally construed to be a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March

13, 2007 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 10]. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration.1

 However, a motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to alter

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02657-JAH-PCL Document 15 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 Rule 59(e) motions must be filed “no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e). Under Rule 60(b), however, a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “not more than one year after the judgment,

order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration 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 justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\06-2657-rec.wpd 3 06cv2657

or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).2 See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489

U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.

1994). In Osterneck, the Supreme Court stated that “a postjudgment motion will be considered

a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a

decision on the merits.’” Id. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec.,

455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There

may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist.

No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff also appears to argue in his motion that he is “under imminent danger of serious

physical injury” and thus, should be permitted to proceed IFP. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that

he has been subjected to “serious” and “irreparable injuries” while housed at the Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2. However, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s

change of address, Document Number 14, Plaintiff is no longer housed at Donovan and thus, he

has brought the Court no new facts by which the Court could determine that he is currently being

subjected to any “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

In short, Plaintiff has provided no newly discovered evidence, has failed to show clear

error or that the Court rendered a manifestly unjust decision, and has further failed to identify

any intervening changes in controlling law that would demand reconsideration of the Court’s

Order. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-02657-JAH-PCL Document 15 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 4
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\JAH\06-2657-rec.wpd 4 06cv2657

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 13].

The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02657-JAH-PCL Document 15 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4