Holt v. Howard

Filing 67

ORDER granting 65 Motion to Clarify. The Court's rejection of Holt's non-frivolous complaint on the merits is not a trike. 66 Motion for Extension of Time is denied. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/11/2014. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION GREGORY HOLT, ADC #129616 v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:12-cv-510-DPM MICHELLE HOWARD, Public Information Officer, Little Rock Police Department, in her official capacity only and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. Motion for clarification, NQ 65, granted. The Court's rejection of Holt's non-frivolous complaint on the merits is not a strike. 2. Motion to extend time for post-judgment motions, NQ 66, denied. The Court can't extend the period for filing Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2). This period, moreover, is not ten days: it is twenty- eight days under Rule 59 and a reasonable time under Rule 60. FED. R. Crv. P. 59(e) & 60(c). Holt will thus have plenty of time to file a motion after having gotten the Court's July 29th Judgment. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?