(PC) John W. Williams v. Samboa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN W. WILLIAMS, No. 1:20-cv-00287-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. (ECF. No. 15)

M. SAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

John W. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was dismissed without prejudice on June 18, 2020, due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee after his application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10). On December 18, 2020, the Court received a $400 payment from Plaintiff. On January 11, 2021, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to refund the $400 filing fee to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11).

On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s order and what the Court construed as a motion. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13). In his objections, Plaintiff accused the Court of misappropriating the funds. (ECF No. 12, p. 1). Plaintiff also appeared to ask the Court to either attribute the filing fee to the correct case or return the payment to his mother, who was the person who paid the fee.

As there was no new case filed at that time, the Court could not attribute the filing fee to that case. (ECF No. 14, p. 2). However, as it appeared that it was Plaintiff’s mother who sent the money order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to have the money refunded to Plaintiff’s mother. (Id.).

On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff states that he spoke with his mother and discovered that the new civil rights complaint had not been included with the initial $400 money order because of health issues that impair memory. Plaintiff has now filed a new case and asks that the filing fee be attributed to that new case.1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), [o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

As to Rule 60(b)(6), plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” (Id.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or law that shows that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for granting reconsideration.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s request is not as simple as it seems. First, as Plaintiff pointed out in his previous filings, the $400 does not belong to Plaintiff, so the Court cannot direct those funds at Plaintiff’s sole request. Second, the filing fee has increased, and the $400 is insufficient to cover the filing fee in Plaintiff’s new case. Third, per Plaintiff’s last request, the Court has

1 Plaintiff did eventually re-file this action. E.D. CA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00155. However, instead of paying the filing fee or informing the Court that he is attempting to pay the filing fee, he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, even though the Court already denied the motion in this action. already begun the process of refunding the money to Plaintiff's mother.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6] Dated: _ February 11, 2021 hey

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE