(PC) Ruiz v. Reilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-01212-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. REILY, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz’s (“Plaintiff”) Motions for Reconsideration of the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s December 8, 2020 Order. (ECF Nos. 24–25.) Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed motions asking the Court to reconsider the December 8, 2020 Order dismissing this case for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee.

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

Plaintiff still has not paid the filing fee nor has he explained why he has not. Additionally, Plaintiff does not point to anything suggesting the denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis was improper. Accordingly, there is no basis for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action.

The Court notes that Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel and an interpreter who speaks Spanish and English. In light of the foregoing, these requests will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 24-25) are DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel and an interpreter are denied. ITIS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2021 yy / “ \/ of Lor —AAK Ze NL Troy L. Nunley> United States District Judge