Opinion
2:23-cv-00221-DAD-AC (PC)
07-25-2023
CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff, v. HOGLAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JUNE 1, 2023 ORDER
(DOC. NO. 9)
Plaintiff Cymeyon Hill is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 3, 2023, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. No. 4.) On June 1, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiff to file further briefing in support of that application within twenty-one days of service of that order because plaintiff's trust account statement reflects a balance with sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee and “suggest[s] that plaintiff's claim in his in forma pauperis application that he received no money from any source over the last twelve months and has no cash or assets is not accurate.” (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any further briefing in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Rather, on June 26, 2023, plaintiff filed a document with the title, “plaintiff's motion for reconsideration under a United States District Court Judge's ruling.” (Doc. No. 9.) Despite the title of the document, which suggests that plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 1, 2023 order, the one-sentence body of the document refers to an unspecified settlement conference in which plaintiff was told that his filing fees would “be taken care of' by a settlement agreement. (Id.) It is not clear to the court what plaintiff is referring to, though perhaps plaintiff is intending to explain that a settlement agreement is the source of the funds in his trust account. Nevertheless, there is no articulated request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 1, 2023 order in plaintiff's filing. Thus, even construed as a request for reconsideration, plaintiff's request will be denied. The magistrate judge's June 1, 2023 order is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 1, 2023 (Doc. No. 9) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.