Norman v. Federal Bureau Investigation

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 GARRED F. NORMAN, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-07648 WHA 12 v.

13 FEDERAL BUREAU OF ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND INVESTIGATION, et al., DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants.

17 In its previous order, the Court reiterated that plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing 18 fee by January 18, 2023, would result in dismissal of the above-captioned action without 19 prejudice (see Dkt. No. 12; see also Dkt. No. 5). It is now January 19, 2023, and plaintiff has 20 still not paid. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

21 Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the orders denying him leave to proceed in 22 forma pauperis and denying his motion to appoint counsel are DENIED. Our court of appeals 23 has held that “[m]otions for reconsideration may properly be denied where the motion fails to 24 state new law or facts.” In re Agric. Rsch. & Tech. Grp., Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 25 1990). It has also held that leave to proceed in forma pauperis may be denied at the outset if it 26 appears on the face of the complaint that the action is frivolous, and that appointment of 27 counsel for indigent civil litigants is limited to exceptional circumstances. Tripati v. First Nat. 1 Cir. 1980). Plaintiff offers no new law or facts to justify reconsideration. Moreover, the Court 2 remains convinced that this action is frivolous and that there are no exceptional circumstances 3 here. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

4 For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is 5 advised that he may appeal this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 6 sixty days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: January 19, 2023.

LC Arce 10 = ILLIAM ALSUP 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

© = 17 Z 18