(PC) Hammler v. Allison
1:21-cv-00122
| E.D. Cal. | Apr 15, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Allen Hammler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, had his IFP application denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the case dismissed without prejudice on March 8, 2021 unless he paid the filing fee.
- Plaintiff asked to re-file the complaint on March 10, 2021 subject to a Southern District of California pre‑filing (vexatious litigant) order; the court denied that request on March 30, 2021.
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration on April 12, 2021, stating he intended (and now can) pay the $402 filing fee and seeking leave to reinstate the case.
- The court reviewed Rule 60(b) and Local Rule 230(k) standards for reconsideration, noting Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary, sparingly used remedy and a movant must show injury and circumstances beyond control.
- The March 8 dismissal allowed Hammler to re‑file a new case only if he paid the fee; the prior order did not grant leave to reopen the now‑closed case.
- The court denied the reconsideration motion because Hammler failed to present new facts or law strongly convincing enough to reverse its prior decision and was instructed to file a new complaint with the $402 fee if he wishes to pursue the claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reconsider denial of leave to re‑file subject to SD pre‑filing order | Hammler says he intends to (and can) pay the $402 fee and thus should be permitted to re‑file/reinstate | Court reasoning: dismissal left reopening contingent on filing a new case with fee; no leave to reopen was granted earlier | Denied — Hammler failed to meet reconsideration standard |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted | Hammler implicitly seeks relief under reconsideration doctrine to reinstate case on payment | Court applies Rule 60(b) standards, requiring extraordinary circumstances or mistake/new evidence | Not warranted — no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether Local Rule 230(k) requirements were satisfied | Hammler asserts changed circumstance (ability to pay) | Court requires showing of new/different facts or law not previously presented | Not satisfied — inability to show strongly convincing new facts |
| Proper procedure to pursue claims after dismissal | Hammler seeks to reinstate existing case number | Court: dismissal closed case; plaintiff must file a new complaint with fee and receive a new case number | Court instructs Hammler to file a new action accompanied by $402 fee; do not reference old case number |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy and movant must show injury and circumstances beyond control)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration appropriate only for new evidence, clear error, or intervening change in controlling law)
- Kern‑Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656 (E.D. Cal. 1986) (movant must set forth strongly convincing facts or law to induce reversal)
- U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (reiteration that mere disagreement or recapitulation of previously considered arguments is insufficient for reconsideration)