Pierce v. The US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges et al, No. 1:2016cv01361 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re 7 Plaintiff's Successive Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/20/2016. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SEAVON PIERCE, 6 7 8 9 10 1:16-cv-1361-LJO-BAM Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 7) v. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICERS AS FEDERAL JUDGES, et al., Defendants. 11 12 The Court recently denied Plaintiff Seavon Pierce’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 13 dismissed this case subject to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee. Doc. 3. Plaintiff filed a 14 motion for reconsideration, Doc. 5, which was subsequently denied. Doc. 6. Plaintiff has since filed a 15 document entitled “objections” to the order denying the motion for reconsideration, Doc. 7, which the 16 Court treats as a successive motion for reconsideration. 17 Although this Court’s previous order denying the motion for reconsideration applied Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to the motion, a review of the case reveals that because Plaintiff’s motion 19 was filed within 28 days of entry of judgment, application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is more 20 appropriate, although the result is the same. 21 “Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically allow for a motion for 22 reconsideration, the court treats a motion for reconsideration filed within [28] days of the entry of 23 judgment as one to alter or amend the judgment under [R]ule 59(e).” Sierra Club v. Tri–State 24 Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275, 287 (D. Colo. 1997). There are four basic 25 grounds upon which the courts have granted a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): “(1) if such 1 1 motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such 2 motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion 3 is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change 4 in controlling law.” Allstate Insurance Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). 5 Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of 6 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 220 F.3d 7 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to 8 show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such 9 prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 10 Neither Plaintiff’s original motion for reconsideration nor his subsequent objection provides any 11 ground for reconsideration. Plaintiff is a three-striker who is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The 12 Order of Dismissal, Doc. 3, correctly concluded that Plaintiff has not alleged imminent danger and 13 Plaintiff has not provided any authority or argument to suggest otherwise. Plaintiff has again made no 14 showing that would justify reconsideration of the Court’s order. No further motions for reconsideration 15 will be considered. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 20, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
