(PC) Lewis v. Bitter ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY LEWIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00840-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE AND FOR 13 v. REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEE 14 BITTER, et al., (ECF No. 46) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Terry Lewis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On March 12, 2021, the then-assigned District Judge adopted in full the Magistrate 20 Judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissed this action, with prejudice, for failure to 21 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 41.) Judgment was entered 22 accordingly the same date. (ECF No. 42.) 23 On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reimbursement. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff 24 argued that he was charged a filing fee twice for the same action, and attached documentation, 25 indicating a filing fee charge for this action, Case No. 1:19-cv-00840-BAM, and another action 26 filed in the Northern District of California, Case No. 20-CV-00323-JST. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff 27 argued that because the second civil claim contained the same words and complaint, he can only 28 be charged one court fee. (Id. at 5.) 1 On September 12, 2022, the undersigned explained that, as Plaintiff had previously been 2 informed, when the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, 3 Plaintiff had the obligation to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. (See ECF 4 Nos. 11, 30.) It was Plaintiff’s decision to file a new civil action in the Northern District of 5 California, even though it apparently contained the same complaint as the instant action, and if 6 Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis in that suit, he is also obligated to 7 pay the filing fee in that action. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to request relief from the filing fee 8 charged by the Northern District of California for Case No. 20-CV-00323-JST, that request 9 should be filed before that court. Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 45.) 10 On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case and renew his request for 11 reimbursement of the filing fee. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff requests that the Court call Folsom State 12 Prison and view a video recording of the B-Yard on July 7, 2018 at ten o’clock, which he alleges 13 will support his claims in this action. Plaintiff requests compensatory damages and 14 reimbursement of one of the two filing fees that he alleges he was charged for in the same case. 15 (Id.) 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 17 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to exercise its discretion to relieve a party from a 18 final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 19 (2) newly discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; 20 (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . ; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 60(b). Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or 22 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 23 or what other grounds exist for the motion.” A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a 24 reasonable time, and for motions under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3), “no more than a year after the 25 entry of the judgment or order or date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 26 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case must be denied. Plaintiff has 27 provided no indication that the information from 2018 was previously unavailable to him to 28 support that it was newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff fails to satisfy any of the Rule 60(b) 1 | grounds to warrant the Court to grant relief from a judgment or order. Finally, Plaintiff has not 2 | explained, beyond a conclusory allegation, how the video he references will cure his failure to 3 | state a claim at the pleading stage of this action. 4 Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion is also untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). On March 5 | 12, 2021, judgment was entered, closing the case more than a year ago. (See ECF No. 41.) 6 | Taking into consideration the judgment’s finality and Plaintiff's lack of reasons for his delay, the 7 | Court finds that Plaintiff did not file the motion within a reasonable time. See Matton Steamboat 8 | Co. v. Murphy, 319 U.S. 412, 415 (1943) (explaining the importance of statutes limiting the 9 | period for appeal to a definite point of time). 10 Accordingly, 11 1. Plaintiff's motion to reopen case and for reimbursement of filing fee, (ECF No. 46), is 12 denied; and 13 2. This action remains closed. 14 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ November 15, 2022 ig UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28