Williams v. Navarro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 24-CV-2161 JLS (MMP)

13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 15 OMAR NAVARRO, Correctional Officer; RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER TERRENCE F. SHEEHY, Attorney 16 DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT General; F. LEWIS, Sergeant; C. PREJUDICE; 17 BAGNOL, Correctional Officer; CDCR;

E. ESTRADA, Correctional Officer; A. 18 (2) DIRECTING THE ACTION TO SILVA, Correctional Officer; T. BE RE-OPENED; AND 19 TISCORNIA, Correctional Officer,

20 Defendants. (3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT TO BE FILED AS A 21 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 22 PAUPERIS

23 (ECF No. 8) 24

25 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Lance Williams’s Motion for Reconsideration 26 of Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice Due to Court’s Error (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8). 27 On May 9, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action due to his failure to either pay the 28 1 filing fee or file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), after being warned 2 failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. ECF No. 6 3 (“Order”). Plaintiff argues he submitted an IFP Motion on April 8, 2025, see Mot. at 1, 4 and includes as an exhibit the alleged IFP Motion, dated April 8, 2025, id. at 3–9.1 The 5 Court notes that no such motion is reflected on the Docket. See generally Docket. 6 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 7 reconsideration. However, S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for 8 reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 9 other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. 10 Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different 11 facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon 12 such prior application.” Id. 13 A motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to a Local Rule may also be construed 14 as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. 15 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989) (“[A] post-judgment motion will be considered 16 a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed 17 in a decision on the merits.’” (quoting White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451 18 (1982))). A motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment 19 under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of entry of the order challenged, as here; 20 otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Am. 21 Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, 23 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood 24 v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). 25 The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged facts and circumstances which did not exist, or 26 27 28 1 Pin citations to this docket entry refer to the CM/ECF page numbers stamped across the top margin of 1 not shown, at the time of the Court’s Order, that warrant reconsideration. 2 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. The 3 Clerk of Court SHALL RE-OPEN the present action and FILE Plaintiff's Exhibit in his 4 Motion for Reconsideration as a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the 5 || Docket. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 2, 2025 tt 8 jen Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28