Jared Anthony Winterer v. United States Solicitor General

2 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Dec 01, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JARED ANTHONY WINTERER, No. 2:25-CV-00270-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR UNITED STATES SOLICITOR RECONSIDERATION GENERAL, 15 Defendant.

17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 12.

18 Plaintiff filed additional supplementary documents on October 27, 2025, October 30, 2025, November 20, 2025, and November 24, 2025. ECF Nos. 13–16.

20 In the Order filed October 9, 2025, ECF No. 10, the Court found that Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Complex-Intensive Management Unit, had failed to demonstrate that he was eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), or that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this lawsuit. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and because Plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity to pay the filing fee, dismissed the action. ECF No. 10.

28 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration or the filing of a new case without a 1|| defendant, designating the document his “Final Amended Complaint.” ECF No. 12. Plaintiff asserts, “United States has to correct my severe suffering arising unlawfully. I turned my case into a crime by United States. Charging a filing fee or dismissing this case would not be an impartial choice. Anything I’ve done is in 5|| imminent danger of serious physical injuries for over 20 years!” Jd. at 1.

The Court finds no basis in Plaintiff's submissions warranting reconsideration of the Order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the action for nonpayment of the filing fee. See Sch. Dist. No. IJ v. 9)| ACandsS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence. /d. at 1263. He has not shown that the Court 11||committed clear error or that the prior Order was manifestly unjust. Jd. There has been no intervening change in controlling law and there are no other circumstances 13|| warranting reconsideration. /d. Therefore, reconsideration is denied.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff’s construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 12, is 16| DENIED.

17 2. The file shall remain closed.

18 3. The Court certifies any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 21||and provide a copy to Plaintiff.

22 DATED this Ist day of December 2025. @ 224 Stan Bastian 26 Chief United States District Judge ADTATRD TRTLNVTIRTM RPATTIALRT TAT ARTCTTADD ATTIARKT EA