Alexandre Zdenek Davis v. Unknown Superintendent, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for reconsideration of an order denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the case for failure to pay the filing fee. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to present new facts or demonstrate clear error, and the case remains dismissed without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 19, 2025, Order denying IFP and dismissing this action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule standard for reconsideration, which requires new or different facts. The plaintiff cited other cases where he was granted IFP, but the court noted that the financial records in those cases (specifically the Montana case) showed a zero balance, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of financial hardship in the current case. The plaintiff did not submit new financial records for the current case. The court also correctly analyzed the motion under Rule 59(e) standards (clear error, new evidence, change in law) and found no basis for relief. The reasoning is consistent with the record provided in the order. |
Action Remains Dismissed Without Prejudice“This action remains DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement as set forth in the Court’s November 19, 2025, Order.” | agree with court Since the motion for reconsideration was denied, the prior order dismissing the case for failure to pay the filing fee stands. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate as it allows the plaintiff to refile if he can pay the fee or qualify for IFP status in the future. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable local rule for reconsideration and the federal rule (Rule 59(e)) alternative. It applies the correct standards (new facts for local rule; clear error/new evidence/change in law for Rule 59(e)). It addresses the plaintiff's specific arguments by referencing the docket records of the other cases cited by the plaintiff, noting that they do not support his current claim of indigency. The conclusion follows logically from the application of the law to the facts presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRE ZDENEK DAVIS, Case No.: 25cv2723-DMS (LR) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 vs. RECONSIDERATION 14 15 UNKNOWN SUPERINTENDENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On October 3, 2025, Alexandre Zdenek Davis, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not 21 prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) but instead filed a Motion to 22 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) 23 On November 19, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion on the basis that 24 he could afford to pay the $405 civil filing fee because his prison certificate showed 25 an average monthly balance of $1825.77 and average monthly deposits of $766.67 for the 26 six months preceding the filing of this action, and an available balance of $645.28. (ECF 27 No. 3 at 2.) This action was dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement 28 without prejudice to Plaintiff to pay the filing fee on or before December 19, 2025. (Id. 1 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for reconsideration of the 2 Court’s November 19, 2025, Order denying IFP and dismissing this action. (ECF No. 4.) 3 Plaintiff argues that other federal courts have granted him IFP, including the District of 4 Idaho in Davis v. Idaho, 25cv544-BLW, and the District of Montana in Davis v. Valdez, 5 23cv58-BLG-SPW, and that he has other financial obligations including restitution, other 6 lawsuits and child support. (Id. at 1.) However, a review of the docket in the Montana 7 case shows Plaintiff’s inmate trust account statement had a zero balance with a $90.52 due 8 and owing for commissary items. See Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement, filed 6/6/23 9 [ECF No. 4] at 6-11, Davis v. Valdez, et al., 25cv544-BLW (D. Mont. 2023). Plaintiff’s 10 trust account statement in the Idaho case is sealed and cannot be viewed on the Court’s 11 docket. See Statement of Prisoner Trust Fund Account filed 10/6/25 [ECF No. 6], Davis 12 v. Idaho, 25cv544-BLW (D. Idaho 2025). Plaintiff has not presented that trust account 13 statement of any different or additional financial information in support of this motion. 14 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions 15 for reconsideration, S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for reconsideration 16 “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been 17 made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part, . . . .” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). 18 The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and 19 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior 20 application.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to show what new or different facts or circumstances 21 exist to show that the Court erred in finding that the trust account statement he submitted 22 in this action does not support a finding of an inability to prepay the civil filing fee. See 23 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[P]risoners must demonstrate that 24 they are not able to pay the filing fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust 25 account records.”) 26 A motion for reconsideration can also be treated as a motion to alter or amend a 27 judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of entry of the order challenged, as 28 here. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 1 Cir. 2001). A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly 2 || discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 3 || controlling law.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). For the same reasons 4 discussed, Plaintiff has not made a showing sufficient to satisfy Rule 59(e). 5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 7 ||November 19, 2025, Order denying IFP and dismissing this action. This action remains 8 || DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement as set 9 || forth in the Court’s November 19, 2025, Order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: December 17, 2025 2» n> ay. 13 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee