Slaughter v. Sinclair

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 15, 2020
• Docket: 2:11-cv-00430
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERU N. S D. I F SDI TLI RSE ITD CR TIIN C O TT F H C WEO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Jan 15, 2020

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER, NO: 2:11-cv-00430-LRS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

10 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, ELDON VAIL, DAN PACHOLKE and 11 MARK KUCZA,

12 Defendants.

14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s letter received on November 26, 2019, 15 ECF No. 59, which is construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order 16 Denying Motion to Waive Remaining Balance of Filing Fee Owed. ECF No. 58. 17 Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function. “‘[T]he major grounds 18 that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the 19 availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest 20 injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 21 1989). Such motions are not the proper vehicle for offering evidence or theories of 1 law that were available to the party at the time of the initial ruling. Fay Corp. v. 2 Bat Holdings I, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987). 3 In the instant case, Plaintiff has not alleged that there has been an 4 intervening change of controlling law. Likewise, he has not offered newly

5 discovered evidence that would justify this Court re-examining the issue. Thus, 6 the only remaining question is whether the court should alter its prior ruling in 7 order to “correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid Lake, 882

8 F.2d at 369 n.5. 9 Plaintiff clarifies that his prior letter, received on November 20, 2019, ECF 10 No. 57, was not intended as a Motion to Waive Remaining Balance of Filing Fee 11 Owed, ECF No. 59 at 1. Rather, Plaintiff wants this Court to “admit or deny this

12 Court ‘ordered me/Mr. O. Slaughter to pay (WDOC) 60% of all his/my incoming 13 monies, including 60% of his Class-3 job pay under WDOC policy - #200.00?” 14 According to Plaintiff’s submissions and the Court’s records1, he has filed

15 three civil actions in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts 16 of Washington in which he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The agency having custody of Plaintiff, the Washington 18 State Department of Corrections, is statutorily obliged to forward to the clerk of

19 20 1 Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) 21 (appropriate to take judicial notice of materials from another tribunal). 1 the court monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income 2 credited to Plaintiff’s account under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) in each of these three 3 cases. See Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 631-33 (2016) (finding that the Prison 4 Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), calls for simultaneous, not

5 sequential, recoupment of multiple filing fees incurred by an indigent prisoner). 6 This logically equates to 60% of Plaintiff’s income. 7 Therefore, while no court has specifically ordered Plaintiff to pay the

8 Washington State Department of Corrections 60% of Plaintiff’s incoming monies, 9 the collective effect of Plaintiff’s choice to pursue three civil actions in the U.S. 10 District Courts is that 60% of his income is subject to being collected and 11 forwarded to the respective clerks of the court. See Bruce, 136 S.Ct. at 631-33.

12 Plaintiff makes no assertion that these payments are not being forwarded to the 13 respective clerks of the court. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 14 construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 59, is DENIED.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order and 16 provide a copy to Plaintiff. The file shall remain closed. The Court further finds 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be 18 taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

19 DATED this 15th day of January 2020. 20 s/Lonny R. Suko _______________________ 21 LONNY R. SUKO