(PC) Ruiz v. Rossi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-1066 WBS DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. ROSSI, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims his rights were violated in connection with a rules violation report he received in June 2019. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 11) and denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the court will recommend that his motion be denied.

23 Plaintiff states that he speaks only Spanish and does not have any funds in his inmate trust account. Much of plaintiff’s motion is written in Spanish.1 Plaintiff argues that the court should not consider some of his prior cases as strikes because he was transferred several times interfering with his ability to pursue those cases. He also claims he responded to court orders, but The court has endeavored to translate and consider the portions of this document that were written in Spanish.

1 inadvertently sent motions to the wrong court. He further states that some of his motions were not accepted because they were written in Spanish. Finally, plaintiff reiterates his statement that he does not have the funds to pay the filing fee and requests the court appoint an attorney or an interpreter to assist him with this case.

5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, reconsideration is appropriate in three instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (1993). Additionally, the local rules state that a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate: “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and [] why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3), (4).

13 Plaintiff has largely raised the same arguments in his motion for reconsideration as he did in his December 3, 2020 motion objecting to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations and requesting the appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 10.) In restating his prior arguments, plaintiff has not shown any new evidence, different facts, or any change in law or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of prior court orders. Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration be denied.

19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 13) be denied.

21 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge Assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified //// //// //// | time may result in a waiver of the nght to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 | F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991).

3 | Dated: March 25, 2021 6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12 | DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/ruiz1066.recon