(PC) Crossley v. Well Path Medical ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LAMOUNT CROSSLEY, No. 1:22-cv-00024-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RENEWED 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 WELL PATH MEDICAL, et al., (Docs. 10, 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to submit a completed application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty days. (Doc. 4.) The Court 19 warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with [the] order will result in dismissal of this action 20 without prejudice.” (Id. at 2, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order or 21 otherwise communicate with the Court. 22 Consequently, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 23 the action be dismissed without prejudice, upon finding Plaintiff failed to obey a court order and 24 failed to prosecute the action. The findings and recommendations contained notice that any 25 objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) In addition, Plaintiff was 26 “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the 27 ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 3–4, quoting Wilkerson v. 28 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and on April 4, 2022, the 1 undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the case, without 2 prejudice. (Doc. 8.) Judgment was entered accordingly the same date. (Doc. 9.) 3 On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a 4 renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 10, 11.) Upon review of the filings, it 5 appears Plaintiff is attempting to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting 6 the findings and recommendations, rather than objections to the findings and recommendations. 7 In his filing, Plaintiff states that the delay in filing occurred because he contracted COVID-19 and 8 was placed in quarantine. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma 9 pauperis is also incomplete, as Plaintiff has again failed to complete the certification portion of 10 the application or to include a certified copy of his trust account statement for the past six months. 11 (Doc. 11.) 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 13 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 14 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 15 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 16 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Additionally, pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for 18 reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 19 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 20 grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 21 As noted above, Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis suffers from 22 the same deficiencies as his original application. Though the motion for reconsideration provides 23 an explanation for Plaintiff’s delayed response to the Court’s orders, it does not provide a basis 24 for reopening this action. Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Court’s orders directing 25 him to either file a completed application or to pay the filing fee for this action and has not 26 presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or evidence related to this action that would 27 support relief under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 28 1. Plaintiff’s objections to findings and recommendations, (Doc. 10), are CONSTRUED as 1 a motion for reconsideration. 2 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 10), is DENIED. 3 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 11), is DENIED; and 4 4. This action remains closed. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7] Dated: _May 3, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28