Reynaldo Aragones v. Unified District School Clovis, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00744
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

11 REYNALDO ARAGONES, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0744 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 7)) 14 UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL CLOVIS, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Reynaldo Aragones seeks to hold Sequium Asset Solutions liable for violations of the Fair Debt 18 Collection Practices Act, asserting the company erroneously and/or inaccurately reported his debt and 19 credit history. (Doc. 1 at 5-6.) Plaintiff requested to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) However, 20 the Court found Plaintiff had the ability to pay the filing fee in full and denied the motion to proceed in 21 forma paupers. (Docs. 4, 6.) After the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to proceed with the 22 action, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 7.) 23 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the 24 court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. 25 Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the following reasons:” 26 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence…; 27 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 28 (4) the judgment is void; 1 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 2 prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 3

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 his application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff fails to show any reason under Rule 60(b) supports this request. 23 Plaintiff does not dispute the finding of the Court—based upon Plaintiff’s own report—that his monthly 24 take-home pay was $4,260.09 and he had $1,400 in a bank account when he filed this action. (See Doc. 25 6 at 2; Doc. 2 at 1-2.) As the Court previously explained, an application to proceed in forma pauperis 26 is evaluated based upon the income and funds available to a plaintiff at the time a complaint is filed. 27 The expenditure of funds after filing does not support a claim of indigency at the time of filing. See 28 Jaramillo v. Burnes, 2023 WL 2575663, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023). It is indisputable that 1 || Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the fee when he filed the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff fails to show 2 || reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b). 3 Plaintiff also argues the merits of his case and attaches exhibits that he contends “demonstrate 4 || the legal merit of [his] claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ... and related statutes.” 5 (Doc. 7 at 2.) However, the Court has neither screened the allegations of the complaint nor made any 6 || determination as to the merits. The matter will not proceed to a screening unless the filing fee is paid 7 || Any arguments related to Plaintiffs claims are irrelevant at this stage of the litigation. 8 Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to invoke any basis under Rule 60(b) for reconsideration of the 9 || Court’s order. Plaintiff does not identify any factual or legal mistake in the Court’s analysis concerni 10 || his ability to pay the filing fee when he initiated this action. Plaintiff also does not identify any new 11 || evidence or a change in controlling law to support reconsideration of the Court’s order. Rather, his 12 || arguments appear based on his general disagreement with the ruling, which is insufficient to support ; 13 || request for reconsideration. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 14 || (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 15 || Court’s decision”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 7) is DENIED. 17 2. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee within 14 days of the date of service of this order | 18 proceed with this action. 19 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in dismissal of this action without 20 prejudice. 21 22 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ September 17, 2025 ( Hug LL. | Wy h \ 24 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28