Dunn v. Unified District School Clovis

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 ) OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE AS 13 v. ) REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION ) 14 UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL CLOVIS, et al., ) (Docs. 6, 7) ) 15 Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION ) PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 16 ) PROCEDURE 60(b)

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 (Doc. 6) and 22 a response to the Court (Doc. 7). The Court reviewed the filings and construes the documents as 23 requests for reconsideration. 24 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the 25 court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. 26 Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 27 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence…; 28 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 1 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on 2 an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 3 (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 5 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests 6 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F. 3d 7 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 8 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the 9 moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d 10 at 749 (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 12 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 13 is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present 14 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” 15 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 16 (internal quotations marks, citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) 17 requires a movant to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did 18 not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion;” and 19 “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is 20 objected to was considered. 21 To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying her application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff fails to show any reason under Rule 60(b) supports his request. 23 Plaintiff asserts she has “the right to file and apply for the [fee] waiver.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) However, the 24 right to apply to proceed without paying the filing does not confer the right to proceed without the 25 payment, particularly where the litigant fails to show indigency. It is well-established that “permission 26 to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 27 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added); see also Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th 28 Cir. 1968) (“to proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions in the federal courts, is conferred as a 1 || privilege only, not as a matter of right”). The Ninth Circuit explained that the “denial of in forma 2 || pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process.” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1231. 3 || Consequently, Plaintiff's objection is unavailing. 4 Plaintiff also appears to argue the sufficiency of the allegations in her complaint and the merit 5 || of her case. (See generally Docs. 6, 7.) However, the Court has neither screened the allegations of tt 6 || complaint nor made any determination as to the merits. The matter will not proceed to a screening 7 || unless the filing fee is paid. Any arguments related to Plaintiffs claims are irrelevant at this stage of 8 || the litigation. 9 Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to invoke any basis under Rule 60(b) for reconsideration of the 10 || Court’s order. Plaintiff does not identify any factual or legal mistake in the Court’s analysis concerni 11 || her household income. Plaintiff also does not identify any new evidence or a change in controlling la 12 || to support reconsideration of the Court’s order. Rather, Plaintiff’s arguments appear predicated on he 13 || general disagreement with the ruling, which is insufficient to support a request for reconsideration. $ 14 || United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party seeki 15 || reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision”) Based upon the 16 || foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. Plaintiff’s objection and response (Docs. 6, 7) are collectively construed as a motion f 18 reconsideration. 19 2. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 20 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee within 14 days of the date of service of this order | 21 proceed with this action. 22 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in dismissal of this action without 23 prejudice. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ August 25, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28