(PC) Hill v. Torres ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:22-cv-00970-KJM-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. TORRES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 19, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, F. & R., 18 ECF No. 15, recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 19 Mot., ECF No. 12. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 20 notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 21 days. Plaintiff filed what appears to be a joint motion for reconsideration and objections to the 22 findings and recommendations on August 25, 2022, Mot. Recon. & Objs., ECF No. 16, and 23 another document that appears to also be objections to the findings and recommendations, Second 24 Objs., ECF No. 17. The filings have been considered by the undersigned. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 28 ///// 1 court briefly provides a background of the case and addresses the objections and motion for 2 reconsideration here. 3 I. Background 4 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking in forma pauperis (IFP) status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on 5 June 27, 2022. Mot. In that filing, plaintiff states “civil detainees are non prisoners [and] filling 6 [sic] fees [are] not required.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that he has no 7 assets. See generally id. The magistrate judge recommends plaintiff’s IFP application be denied 8 because his inmate trust account statement submitted in other cases shows plaintiff had a balance 9 of $3,818.37. F. & R. at 1. 10 Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations and moves for reconsideration. 11 Mot. Recon. & Objs.; Second Objs. He challenges the “subject matter jurisdiction of the court for 12 filling [sic] fees” and argues he is not a prisoner, and therefore, not subject to section 1915. Mot. 13 Recon. & Obj. at 1–3. He states the court is “illegally forcing plaintiff to file payment fees that 14 civil detainees are exempt [from] and [he is] not required to file any fees.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff also 15 states, “I do not accept this offer to contract and I do not consent to these proceedings.” Second 16 Objs. at 1. 17 II. Objections to the Findings and Recommendations 18 Plaintiff argues he does not have to pay filing fees because he is a civil detainee, and not a 19 prisoner. This argument has no merit. It is not only prisoners who have to pay filing fees. 20 Section 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis and permits plaintiffs generally to 21 commence an action without paying filing fees if they submit an affidavit stating they are “unable 22 to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). While section 1915(a)(2) has 23 specific provisions for prisoners, section 1915(a)(1) applies broadly to all litigants, including 24 those who are not prisoners. See, e.g., Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 25 2015) (reviewing the denial of an IFP application for a non-prisoner pro se plaintiff). 26 In his objections, plaintiff does not claim he does not have the ability to pay the fees. 27 Rather, he argues he does not have to pay the fees and the court does not have jurisdiction to 28 make him pay the fees. “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 1 particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (quoting United States v. 2 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)). Because plaintiff does not claim he is unable to 3 pay the filing fees, the court denies his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 III. Motion for Reconsideration 5 A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under 6 either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) 7 (citation omitted). The filing is timely under both rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (setting a 28-day 8 window to file the motion); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (motion must be “made within a reasonable 9 time”). 10 Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in 11 controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or 12 prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 13 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment 14 and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 15 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 16 discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct 17 of an opposing party. Relief under Rule 60(b) should not be granted absent “extraordinary 18 circumstances” showing a significant change in facts or law. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 19 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j)(3)–(4) requires that a 20 movant seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or 21 any other grounds to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order. 22 Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration under either Rule 59 or Rule 60. 23 Thus, the court denies his motion. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 19, 2022, are adopted; 26 2. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2022 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12) 27 is denied; 28 3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is denied; and 1 4. Plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of this order. 2 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action. 3 | DATED: March 24, 2023. 5 Ed □□ f\ / / ul ‘ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28