Dunne v. Smith et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and ORDER DISMISSING 59 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill on 11/8/2011. (Jessen, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION

WILLIAM D. DUNNE,
Case No. 1:07-CV-0074-BLW
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.

D. SMITH, WARDEN, B. AVALOS,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN, and J.
KARGE, CAPTAIN,
Defendants.

Before the Court in this Bivens action is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
brought under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 59.) Plaintiff has
since also filed a Notice of Appeal. (Dkt. 61.)
Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely and will be dismissed. A motion to alter or amend
judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed.
R. Civil P. 59(e). Here, judgment was entered on March 31, 2011, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration was dated on May 7 and filed on May 18, both over 28 days later. (Dkts.
57, 59.)
Plaintiff has requested an extension of time such that his Motion would be deemed
timely. (Dkt. 58.) While he claims that the institution where he is incarcerated was locked
ORDER - 1

down beginning on April 26, 2011, he acknowledges that he received the Court’s
Memorandum Decision and Order nearly three weeks earlier, on April 7, well within the
time to file a timely motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 58, p. 2.) The Court therefore finds
his request to be lacking in good cause and, in any event, the Court does not have the
authority to extend the time in which to file a Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. Civil P.
6(b)(2) (“a court must not extend the time to act under ... Rule 59(e)”); see also Harman
v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993).
Even if the Motion were timely, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
asserted no clear errors of law or fact, or extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant
reconsideration of its decision in this case. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 58) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 59) is DISMISSED.

DATED: November 8, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER - 2