ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY FILING FEE

(ECF No. 162)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 15, 2016, the Undersigned denied Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in form pauperis. (ECF No. 141.) Plaintiff appealed. (ECF No. 144.) On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. (ECF No. 154.) On September 11, 2017, the District Judge assigned to this case ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within fourteen days. (ECF No. 156.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. (Id.) Plaintiff sought a sixty-day extension of time to pay the fee. (ECF No. 157.) The Undersigned denied the request but extended the deadline to October 3, 2017. (ECF No. 158.) The deadline passed and Plaintiff did not submit the filing fee. Instead, on September 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 159.) Therein, he asks, "What is the filing fee?" (Id.) On October 4, 2017, the District Judge assigned to this case dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee and entered judgment of dismissal. (ECF Nos. 160; 161.)

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Undersigned's Order denying his motion for extension of time to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 162.) In the motion, Plaintiff claims that his appeal to the Ninth Circuit is not yet final. (Id.) He asks for an additional 30 days to pay the filing fee. (Id.)

"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). "A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation." Id. Furthermore, "`[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and `recapitulation . . .'" of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that "new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion[.]"

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence, nor does he demonstrate that this Court committed clear error or that there was an intervening change in the law. On September 6, 2017, the Ninth Circuit entered a Mandate on the docket in this matter that it's Order (ECF No. 153) denying Plaintiff's appeal took effect on that date. (ECF No. 155.) That is the law of this case. Based upon that Mandate, this Court required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee by September 23, 2017 (ECF No. 156), and then extended that deadline to October 3, 2017 (ECF No. 158.) Plaintiff did not pay the fee by that deadline, and now asks for additional time to do so. (ECF No. 162.) Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration merely reiterates his prior requests and offers no basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 162) is DENIED. His case has been dismissed. It remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.