Alana Dunn v. Unified District School Clovis, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00962
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ALANA DUNN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0962 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION TO THE COURT AS A MOTION 13 v. ) FOR RECONSIDERATION ) 14 UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL CLOVIS, et al., ) (Doc. 10) ) 15 Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION ) 16 )

17 Alana Dunn requested to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 2.) The Court found 18 Plaintiff’s annual household income—which exceeds $90,000—was sufficient for her to pay the 19 Court’s filing fee and still provide for life’s necessities for herself and her dependents. (Doc. 5 at 1-2.) 20 Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Id. at 2.) 21 After the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee, Plaintiff filed objections to the order 22 (Doc. 6) and a response to the Court (Doc. 7). The Court reviewed the filings and construed them as a 23 motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). (Doc. 9.) The Court found Plaintiff failed to “identify 24 any factual or legal mistake in the Court’s analysis concerning her household income,” and her 25 arguments were “predicated on her general disagreement with the ruling.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the 26 Court denied the reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 14 days. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff has now filed a “motion to the Court where errors occurred.” (Doc. 10.) Again, the 28 Court construes the filing to be a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Pursuant 1 to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may 2 relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) 3 indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 4 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence…; 5 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 6 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on 7 an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 8 (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 10 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests 11 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F. 3d 12 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 13 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the 14 moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d 15 at 749 (cleaned up). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 17 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise 18 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 19 the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 20 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 21 To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying her application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis based upon a mistake of fact, Plaintiff fails to show such an error. She 23 maintains that she does “not make 91,000 a year” and “that’s a error[].” (Doc. 10 at 8.) However, the 24 Court did not find that Plaintiff alone makes such a salary. Upon review of the motion to proceed in 25 forma pauperis, the Court found that “Plaintiff reported an annual household income of $91,294.80 26 including her own salary as well as the SSI benefits received for four children.” (Doc. 5 at 2, emphasis 27 added.) It is indisputable that Plaintiff reported receiving $3,007.90 in benefits per month for her 28 children, in addition to her gross monthly pay of $4,600.00. (See Doc. 2 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff fails to 1 || show the Court erred in identifying the household income when evaluating her motion to proceed in 2 forma pauperis. Consequently, Plaintiff's argument is unavailing. 3 Plaintiff also appears to argue the sufficiency of the allegations in her complaint and the merit 4 || of her case. (See generally Docs. 10.) As the Court previously explained, the Court has not screened 5 || the allegations of the complaint nor made any determination as to the merits. The matter will not 6 || proceed to a screening unless the filing fee is paid. Any arguments related to Plaintiffs claims are 7 |\ irrelevant at this stage of the litigation. 8 Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to show reconsideration of the Court’s order is appropriate under Rv 9 || 60(b). Plaintiff does not identify any factual or legal mistake in the Court’s analysis concerning her 10 || household income. Plaintiff also does not identify any new evidence or a change in controlling law □□ 11 || support reconsideration of the Court’s order. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff’?s motion “to the Court [to show] where the errors occurred,” construed as a 13 motion for reconsideration (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 14 2. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee no later than September 25, 2025. 15 Further motions for reconsideration on this matter will not be entertained by the Court. 16 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in dismissal of this action without 17 prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _ September 12, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28