Johnson v. Cuevas
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-05264
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Cuevas, Judge White denied reconsideration and dismissed the case without prejudice after Johnson failed to pay the filing fee.
Paul David Johnson's case was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion does not state whether any defendant took action in the case.
What happened
In Johnson v. Cuevas, Paul David Johnson was denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and was ordered to pay it within 28 days. The court warned that failing to pay, request more time, or explain the failure would lead to dismissal without prejudice. Johnson did none of those things by the deadline.
About four months after the deadline, Johnson asked the court to reconsider the earlier decision. He argued that he had been in immediate danger from exposure to COVID-19. The court found that he had not shown the required new facts, change in law, clear error, or other basis for reconsideration, and that his allegations did not establish immediate danger when he filed the case.
Judge White denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also dismissed the case without prejudice because Johnson did not pay the filing fee, request an extension, or explain why he could not pay, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Cuevas · No. 4:21-cv-05264
- Jeffrey White
- Nov. 2, 2023
Background
On January 17, 2023, the court denied Paul David Johnson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court ordered Johnson to pay the filing fee within 28 days and warned that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not pay, request an extension, or show cause—give a sufficient explanation—for not paying.
Johnson did not pay the fee, request more time, or show cause before the deadline. Approximately four months after the deadline, he moved for reconsideration of the order denying permission to proceed without prepayment of the fee.
Reconsideration motion
The court explained that reconsideration of a pre-judgment order requires a specific showing, such as a material difference in facts or law that could not reasonably have been known earlier, newly emerging material facts or a change in law, or the court's failure to consider material facts. The court also noted that reconsideration may be appropriate for newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
Johnson argued that he had been in imminent danger since alleged COVID-19 exposures on June 29, 2020, and September 18, 2022. The court stated that the imminent-danger exception is assessed when the prisoner files the case. Johnson filed this case on July 28, 2021—more than a year after the first alleged exposure and more than a year before the second. The court found that his conclusory assertion of continuing danger was insufficient because he did not explain why he remained at risk more than a year after the first exposure or more than a year before the second. The court also noted that he had not included the alleged danger in his complaint or explained why he waited months after the earlier ruling and the dismissal of his appeal to seek reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied Johnson's motion for reconsideration. It also dismissed the case without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee, seek an extension, or show cause before the deadline. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court ruled on reconsideration of a filing-fee decision and dismissed the case because the fee was not paid; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.