Thompson v. Kernan, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER RE Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/21/10: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 35 is DENIED. (Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Travis Ray Thompson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Motion for Reconsideration, or Alternatively for an Interlocutory Appeal of the Order Dismissing Certain Claims, Dated 10-5-09." (Doc #35.) Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #4.) No other parties have made an appearance in this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its October 6, 2009 order dismissing certain claims from this action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; 1 v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants. / TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00572-SKO PC ORDER RE MOTION (Doc. 35)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that relief from the Court's prior order is warranted under Rule 60(b).

4 Plaintiff has not specifically identified which of the enumerated reasons apply. Plaintiff argues that 5 the Court's judgment was erroneous. However, Plaintiff fails to raise any arguments that were not 6 considered by the Court when the order was issued. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be 7 denied. 8 Plaintiff alternatively seeks an interlocutory appeal of the Court's dismissal of his claims. 9 Plaintiff is advised that it is not necessary to seek the permission of this Court to file an appeal with 10 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion, filed on October 19, 2009, 12 is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
T h e order dismissing Plaintiff's claims was conducted by a Magistrate Judge on consent of Plaintiff, as p r o v id e d by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Section 636(c)(3) provides: U p o n entry of judgment in any case referred under paragraph (1) of this s u b s e c tio n , an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United S ta te s court of appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same m a n n e r as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court.
1

the Ninth Circuit.1

Dated: ie14hj

April 21, 2010

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2