Hawthorne v. Mendoza-Power et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING 91 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/31/2012. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, JR., CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01101-LJO-DLB PC 10 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. (ECF No. 91) KATHY MENDOZA-POWER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Ralph Kelly Hawthorne, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the 18 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro 19 se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 4, 2010, judgment was entered in 20 favor of Defendants Kathy Mendoza-Power and K. Henry and against Plaintiff. On March 15, 21 2010, Plaintiff appealed the judgment. On August 17, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals 22 for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, 23 filed October 31, 2011, for reconsideration. ECF No. 91. However, Plaintiff does not seek 24 reconsideration of any specific court order, but moves for an extension of time to complete 25 Plaintiff’s application for bill of costs to the Ninth Circuit. 26 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. First, the application is to be filed 27 with the circuit clerk, not the district court. Second, in the order reversing the judgment, the 28 Ninth Circuit specifically stated, “The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.” Thus, it 1 1 appears that Plaintiff is precluded from receiving costs, even though he was successful in his 2 appeal. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion, filed October 31, 2011, is 3 4 denied. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis July 31, 2012 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 9 L. Beck 3b142a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?