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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NURSE REISENHOOVER, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-0326-NJV (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE

Docket No. 25

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint. The court denied Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 19.) The 

court denied Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend but granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of 

time to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 24.) The court granted Plaintiff 28 days to pay the filing fee and 

warned him that if he did not pay the fee the case would be dismissed. (Doc. 24.) Rather than 

paying the filing fee, Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for relief from a judgment. (Doc. 

25.) The case has not been dismissed, so the court will construe Plaintiff's motion as a motion for

reconsideration.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “Motions for Reconsideration”; 

such motions are created by local rules or practice. In the Northern District of California, Local 

Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory 

orders made in a case prior to the entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Therefore, postjudgment motions for reconsideration are construed as motions to alter or amend judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment or order under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without 

leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the 

time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 

presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is 

sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did 

not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new 

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by 

the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory 

order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff has failed to show new law or facts that occurred after the court issued its order. 

Therefore, the motion for relief from a judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED. The 28 days granted to 

Plaintiff to pay the filing fee have now passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Therefore, 

this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2017

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge