Thomas v. Hill

Opinion

Kenneth D. THOMAS, Case No.: 24-cv-1528-AGS-MSB

Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 4) AS MOOT AND

J. HILL, RJD Prison, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR Defendants. RECONSIDERATION (ECF 5) Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas, an inmate representing himself, brings a civil-rights claim against his prison and its warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 27, 2024, the Court granted Thomas’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee due to poverty but dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF 3.) The Court granted Thomas leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7.) Instead, Thomas filed a motion for reconsideration. (See ECF 4.) On the same day he also filed another motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. (ECF 5.) First, Thomas’s new motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee is denied as moot because the Court has already granted him leave to proceed without prepayment. (See ECF 3.) Second, in his motion for reconsideration, Thomas appears to argue the Court erroneously dismissed his original complaint, in which he alleged he had been improperly denied participation in an alternative custody program. (See ECF 5.) Thomas claims the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has improperly calculated his sentence and applicable credits based on “discrimination.” (Id. at 10.) And he alleges that, as a result, the CDCR has prevented him from participating in an alternative custody placement and denied him an “opportunity to get out early.” (Id. at 8.) A district court has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke a prior order. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration of a prior order is proper “if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Thomas has not presented newly discovered evidence, alleged clear error, or an intervening legal change. He instead vaguely repeats the assertions made in his original complaint. “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (cleaned up). Therefore, the motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot, and his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court sua sponte GRANTS plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended complaint, if he so chooses, by July 11, 2025. The amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to the original complaint. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1. Any claims dismissed with leave to amend that are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). If Thomas fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on failure to state a claim upon which relief be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). Dated: May 20, 2025

Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 3 a ee