Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al.

S.D. California

Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al.

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-02148

StatusUnknown

This text of Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al. (Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW JAMES FAISON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2148-CAB-MMP Florida DOC #038634, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 ALTER OR AMEND THE vs. JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 14 FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

15 PROCEDURE 59(e) THESSDUS WILLIAMS, et al., 16 Defendants. [Doc. No. 5] 17 18 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff Matthew James Faison, a prisoner confined in the state 22 of Florida and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. Nos. 1, 2.] On 24 September 9, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion as barred by 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(g) and dismissed the case, because more than three of Plaintiff’s prior civil actions 26 or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. [See 27 Doc. No. 3.] On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Doc. No. 5.] As discussed below, the 1 Court DENIES the motion. 2 DISCUSSION 3 “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 4 discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision 5 that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 6 Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of 7 Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). This type of motion “is an extraordinary 8 remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 9 (9th Cir. 1999). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present 10 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 11 litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s motion is timely. 13 “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry 14 of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In this case, judgment was entered on September 15 9, 2025 and as such, any Rule 59(e) motion was due on or before October 7, 2025. While 16 Plaintiff’s motion was docketed on October 14, 2025, pro se prisoners are deemed to have 17 filed a pleading or motion when they deliver their documents to prison authorities for 18 forwarding to the clerk. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, 19 date stamps on both the motion and the envelope containing it, show Plaintiff handed the 20 document to a correctional officer for mailing via the U.S. Postal Service on October 6, 21 2025. [See Doc. No. 5 at 5.] Therefore, the motion is timely under the mailbox rule. 22 Plaintiff’s motion, however, must be denied because he has failed to point to any 23 newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. Plaintiff appears 24 to argue the dismissal of his case was clearly erroneous because the Court failed to give 25 him leave to amend his complaint. [See Doc. No. 5 at 2–3.] He also appears to ask the 26 Court to permit him to “add [the] state and federal government as parties.” [Id. at 1.] But, 27 as noted above, the case was dismissed because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who has had three previous actions dismissed 1 as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, is prohibited by § 1915(g) from 2 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent 3 danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 4 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). In denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion, the Court noted he 5 previously had more than three prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were 6 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 [See Doc. 7 No. 3 at 3.] And nowhere in his motion does Plaintiff suggest the Court clearly erred in 8 finding he had suffered over three prior “strikes” as defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 9 [See Doc. No. 5.] 10 Nor has Plaintiff argued the Court erred in finding the exception to § 1915(g)’s 11 “three-strikes rule,” was inapplicable in his case. To qualify for the § 1915(g) exception, a 12 three-strikes prisoner must allege “imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both 13 fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” 14 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). In addition, the imminent danger exception 15 “requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and a prisoner’s complaint.” Id. at 16 695. Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint or his Rule 59(e) motion contain any allegations from 17 which the Court could infer he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his civil action, 18 much less allegations showing a nexus to the claims raise in the complaint. [See Doc. No. 19

20 21 1 The Court listed the following “strikes”: (1) Faison v. U.S. Middle District Court Judges, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-0690-JES, Doc. No. 4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2001) (dismissing case as frivolous); (2) Faison 22 v. Outlaw Penpal Assoc. Co., Case No. 2:05-cv-3495-UA-JC, Doc. No. 2 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2005) (dismissing for failure to state a claim); (3) Faison v. Library of Congress, No. 12-16683, Doc. No. 5 (9th 23 Cir. 2012) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); and (4) Faison v. United States, Case No. 2:14-cv-7152, Doc. No. 2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (dismissing for failure to state a claim). [See Doc. No. 3 at 3–4]. 24 Furthermore, numerous other federal courts have also found Plaintiff subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 25 Faison v. Sperling, Case No. 18-cv-01992-GMS-ESW, 2019 WL 783020, at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2019) (finding Plaintiff had “three strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) after identifying more than a dozen 26 cases dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous, and listing additional § 1915(g) dismissals); see also In re Faison, 419 F. App’x 171, 172 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that “Faison was considered a ‘three 27 striker’” under § 1915(g)); Faison v. Areheart, et al., 2:17-cv-06502-JGB-JCG, Doc. No. 4 (C.D. Cal. Sept.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW JAMES FAISON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2148-CAB-MMP Florida DOC #038634, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 ALTER OR AMEND THE vs. JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 14 FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

15 PROCEDURE 59(e) THESSDUS WILLIAMS, et al., 16 Defendants. [Doc. No. 5] 17 18 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff Matthew James Faison, a prisoner confined in the state 22 of Florida and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. Nos. 1, 2.] On 24 September 9, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion as barred by 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(g) and dismissed the case, because more than three of Plaintiff’s prior civil actions 26 or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. [See 27 Doc. No. 3.] On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Doc. No. 5.] As discussed below, the 1 Court DENIES the motion. 2 DISCUSSION 3 “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 4 discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision 5 that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 6 Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of 7 Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). This type of motion “is an extraordinary 8 remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 9 (9th Cir. 1999). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present 10 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 11 litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s motion is timely. 13 “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry 14 of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In this case, judgment was entered on September 15 9, 2025 and as such, any Rule 59(e) motion was due on or before October 7, 2025. While 16 Plaintiff’s motion was docketed on October 14, 2025, pro se prisoners are deemed to have 17 filed a pleading or motion when they deliver their documents to prison authorities for 18 forwarding to the clerk. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, 19 date stamps on both the motion and the envelope containing it, show Plaintiff handed the 20 document to a correctional officer for mailing via the U.S. Postal Service on October 6, 21 2025. [See Doc. No. 5 at 5.] Therefore, the motion is timely under the mailbox rule. 22 Plaintiff’s motion, however, must be denied because he has failed to point to any 23 newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. Plaintiff appears 24 to argue the dismissal of his case was clearly erroneous because the Court failed to give 25 him leave to amend his complaint. [See Doc. No. 5 at 2–3.] He also appears to ask the 26 Court to permit him to “add [the] state and federal government as parties.” [Id. at 1.] But, 27 as noted above, the case was dismissed because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who has had three previous actions dismissed 1 as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, is prohibited by § 1915(g) from 2 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent 3 danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 4 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). In denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion, the Court noted he 5 previously had more than three prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were 6 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 [See Doc. 7 No. 3 at 3.] And nowhere in his motion does Plaintiff suggest the Court clearly erred in 8 finding he had suffered over three prior “strikes” as defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 9 [See Doc. No. 5.] 10 Nor has Plaintiff argued the Court erred in finding the exception to § 1915(g)’s 11 “three-strikes rule,” was inapplicable in his case. To qualify for the § 1915(g) exception, a 12 three-strikes prisoner must allege “imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both 13 fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” 14 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). In addition, the imminent danger exception 15 “requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and a prisoner’s complaint.” Id. at 16 695. Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint or his Rule 59(e) motion contain any allegations from 17 which the Court could infer he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his civil action, 18 much less allegations showing a nexus to the claims raise in the complaint. [See Doc. No. 19

20 21 1 The Court listed the following “strikes”: (1) Faison v. U.S. Middle District Court Judges, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-0690-JES, Doc. No. 4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2001) (dismissing case as frivolous); (2) Faison 22 v. Outlaw Penpal Assoc. Co., Case No. 2:05-cv-3495-UA-JC, Doc. No. 2 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2005) (dismissing for failure to state a claim); (3) Faison v. Library of Congress, No. 12-16683, Doc. No. 5 (9th 23 Cir. 2012) (dismissing appeal as frivolous); and (4) Faison v. United States, Case No. 2:14-cv-7152, Doc. No. 2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (dismissing for failure to state a claim). [See Doc. No. 3 at 3–4]. 24 Furthermore, numerous other federal courts have also found Plaintiff subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 25 Faison v. Sperling, Case No. 18-cv-01992-GMS-ESW, 2019 WL 783020, at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2019) (finding Plaintiff had “three strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) after identifying more than a dozen 26 cases dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous, and listing additional § 1915(g) dismissals); see also In re Faison, 419 F. App’x 171, 172 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that “Faison was considered a ‘three 27 striker’” under § 1915(g)); Faison v. Areheart, et al., 2:17-cv-06502-JGB-JCG, Doc. No. 4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017) (listing prior cases found to be “strikes” as well as prior cases which were dismissed 28 1 ||5.] To the contrary, Plaintiff's complaint is focused on Defendants’ alleged failure to 2 ||provide him with a “bimonthly” payment of “one million dollars for providing work.” 3 ||[Doc. No. 1 at 6.] Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show the denial of his IFP motion 4 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissal of his case was clear error. Plaintiff's motion 5 ||to amend or alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) is DENIED. 6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or 8 ||Amende the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The action 9 || therefore remains DISMISSED, and the Court again CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from 10 || this Order would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk shall close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: October 28, 2025 (GB 13 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matthew James Faison v. Thessdus Williams, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-james-faison-v-thessdus-williams-et-al-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack