IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
June 5, 2012
MINOR N.S., MOTHER C.C., ET AL.,
SAFEWAY, INC., RETAIL STORES, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs "Minor N.S." and "Mother C.C." seek reconsideration of this
Court's denial of
15 their request to proceed in forma pauperis. As grounds for the
motion, they point to other, unrelated
cases in which they have apparently been granted in forma pauperis
status. Civil Local Rule 7-9
permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order founded upon "[t]he 18 emergence of new material
facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order."
Here, 19 the prior order is not interlocutory in nature, and
plaintiffs have failed (1) to request leave to file the 20 motion, and
(2) to identify material facts or a change in the law.*fn1
The motion is therefore denied. 21
Additionally, plaintiffs filed a pleading styled as a motion for an injunction, requesting an 22 order restraining retail stores from employing lawyers, purportedly in violation of RICO. Plaintiffs 23 still have not paid the filing fee, as directed by this Court's prior order. That alone disfavors 24 consideration of plaintiff's request. In addition, the "motion" was not properly noticed, and, 25 although apparently brought on an ex parte basis, it does not comply with the Local Rules governing 26 such proceedings. See Civil Local Rule 7-10. Finally, on the merits, plaintiffs have made no effort 27 to satisfy Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and it is apparent that their 2 request is wholly meritless. It is denied. Plaintiffs are again reminded that, despite their pro se 3 status, they must pay the filing fee and comply with this Court's Civil Local Rules to proceed with 4 this action. 5 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.