Lua v. Smith et al

Filing 30

ORDER Re Plaintiff's MOTION For RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 29 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/1/2016. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. 29 ) is DENIED. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5

HUGO LUA,

1:14-cv-19-LJO-MJS

6
7
8

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 29)

Plaintiff,
v.
O. SMITH, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

On September 30, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend and

12

closed the case. Doc. 22. Approximately three months later, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s order to the

13
14
15

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Docs. 24, 25. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was untimely. See Doc. 27.
On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 30,

16

2015 order. See Doc. 29. Although so styled, Plaintiff’s motion is directed to the Ninth Circuit—he

17

argues that his appeal should not have been dismissed as untimely. See id. at 1. Plaintiff’s motion should

18
19

have been filed in the Ninth Circuit, not this Court, which has no authority to alter the decisions of the
Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 29) is DENIED.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 1, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
1