United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OR
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge
court dismissed this action on September 2, 2016, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), without prejudice to Plaintiff
refiling his claims with concurrent payment of the filing
fees. See ECF No. 4. Judgment entered that day. ECF
No. 5. Plaintiff did not submit payment, file a notice of
appeal, or seek reconsideration.
now seeks reconsideration and moves to “renew,
continue, re-open, or supplement the facts” under Rules
52, 60, and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”). See ECF Nos. 6, 7. The court
construes these documents as Motions for Reconsideration
and/or for Injunctive Relief and DENIES the Motions.
52(b) states in pertinent part:
Amended or Additional Findings. On a
party's motion filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings - or
make additional findings - and may amend the judgment
60(b) “provides for reconsideration upon a showing of
(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a
satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary
circumstances' which would justify relief.”
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration
are not a substitute for appeal and should be infrequently
made and granted. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v.
Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981); see
also Tierney v. Abercrombie, 2012 WL 4502454, at *2 (D.
Haw. Sept. 28, 2012) (discussing “serial filing of
frivolous motions for reconsideration”).
discusses the court's authority to issue injunctive
relief. “[I]njunctive relief [is] an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The
standard for deciding requests for a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction relief are the same and are
well established. “The proper legal standard for
preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate
‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.'” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586
F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555
U.S. at 20); see also Center for Food Safety v.
Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“After Winter, ‘plaintiffs must
establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible,
in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”); Am.
Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046,
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). “A preliminary injunction is
appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious
questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of
hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor.”
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v.
McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 97 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).
to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under FRCP 52(b), he
filed the Motions four months after this action was closed
and they are untimely.
to the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration under FRCP 60,
he presents no coherent, persuasive reason for the court to
amend its judgment, make additional findings, or reconsider
its ruling to dismiss this case without prejudice for
Plaintiff's failure to pay the civil filing fee when he
filed the Complaint. That is, the five Medical Requests
attached to the Motion do not show that Plaintiff was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the
Complaint, requiring the grant of in forma pauperis status.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, Plaintiff
submits no change in the controlling law, new evidence, or
extraordinary circumstances justifying the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice or showing that the
judgment is void. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v.
Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010) (discussing when
reconsideration is appropriate for a void judgment); Hele
Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 873
F.Supp.2d 1268, 1289 (D. Haw. 2012) (requiring a litigant
seeking reconsideration to (1) “demonstrate reasons why
the court should reconsider its prior decision, ” or
(2) “set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing
nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
neither Plaintiff's Motions nor exhibits show that there
are serious questions going to the merits of his claims, the
balance of hardships tips sharply towards issuance of a
preliminary injunction, or “that there is a likelihood
of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the