(PC) Davis, Sr. v. Cloak ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARL DAVIS, SR., Case No. 1:22-cv-01632-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 S. REED, R. VINCENT, and E. CLOAK, (Doc. No. 60) 15 Defendants. O OR RD DE ER R VACATING DECEMBER 8, 2023 16 (Doc. No. 57) 17 18 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s construed motion requesting the Court to 19 reconsider its December 8, 2023 Order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee due to his release 20 from prison. (Doc. No. 60). Plaintiff disputes that he owes a fee balance in this case and asks the 21 Court to verify his payment history. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 22 construed motion for reconsideration. 23 On December 8, 2023, upon Plaintiff’s release from CDCR custody, the Court issued an 24 order directing Plaintiff, if he wished to proceed with this case, to either pay the balance of his 25 filing fee or file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 57). Prior to 26 issuing the Order, the Court had contacted the finance department and was advised that Plaintiff 27 owed a fee balance of $350.00 for this action. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff contends that he has in fact 28 paid the full fees on this case through withdrawals from his CDCR trust account. (Doc. No. 60). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 2 | judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered 3 | evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood 4 | v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) Gnternal quotation marks, citation omitted) (emphasis 5 | in original). After conferring with the finance department and re-reviewing Plaintiff's payment 6 | history, the Court confirms that Plaintiff has paid his filing fees in full for this action and has no 7 | balance remaining. Consequently, the Court finds that its December 8, 2023 Order stating that 8 | Plaintiff still owed the full filing fee for this action was clear error. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 10 1. Plaintiff?s construed motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 60) is GRANTED. 11 2. The Court VACATES its December 8, 2023 Order (Doc. No. 57) as Plaintiff does not 12 owe a fee balance on this case. 13 "| Dated: _ January 16,2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28