(PC) Sharp v. King ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY A. SHARP, 1:18-cv-01556-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 AUDREY KING, et al., (Doc. No. 13.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Anthony A. Sharp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On June 28, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 24 and Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full for this action within thirty days. (ECF No. 25 10.) On August 26, 2019, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full. 26 (ECF No. 12.) On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 27 13.) 28 1 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the 4 “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 5 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” L. R. 230(j). “A motion 6 for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 7 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 8 intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 9 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A 10 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, 11 and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 12 decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” . . . of that which was already considered by 13 the Court in rendering its decision.” Clark v. County of Tulare, 755 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1099-00 14 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 15 B. Plaintiff’s Motion 16 Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s order issued on August 26, 2019, which 17 adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and require Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full for this case within 19 thirty days. The basis for Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is his disagreement with the 20 court’s decision. Plaintiff contends that because he is legally indigent, the court should not have 21 revoked his in forma pauperis status. 22 Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief and has 23 therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 24 Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff again does not address § 1915(g), and his disagreement with the 25 court’s ruling is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Clark, 755 F.Supp.2d at 1099- 26 00. Because Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a proper basis for reconsideration, his 27 motion will be denied. 28 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 3 No. 13) is DENIED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2p 6 || Dated: _ November 6, 2019 Z Cb L ¢ "_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28