(PC) Keeton v. Lynch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Tommy Roy Keeton, No. 2:20-cv-2270-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Jeff Lynch, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Tommy Roy Keeton moves for reconsideration of this court’s order adopting the 19 | Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See Mot. Recons., ECF No. 24. Specifically, 20 | the court denied Mr. Keeton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay 21 | the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of the order, cautioning him that failure to 22 | do so will result in the dismissal of this action. See Order, ECF No. 23. “Under Rule 59(e), a 23 | motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 24 | district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 1s an 25 | intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 26 | (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Since the court’s order, Mr. Keeton alleges that he has been 27 | moved to a different facility where he has been deprived of a mattress, bedding, and clothing and 28 | that he is facing retaliation from prison officials for filing this action. Mot. Recons. at □□□□ 1 | While these allegations are troubling, Mr. Keeton still does not demonstrate he is eligible to 2 | proceed in forma pauperis. 3 Thus, the court denies Mr. Keeton’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover, this action is 4 | dismissed because Mr. Keeton has not paid the $402 filing fees despite the court’s warning. This 5 | case is CLOSED. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 24. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: July 29,2022 9 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45