Wilson v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING 11 Motion for Relief From Dismissal and Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/7/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRYANT FRANK WILSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:14-cv-01475-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM DISMISSAL AND JUDGMENT

v.
(Doc. 11)

13

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Bryant Frank Wilson, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 22, 2014. On September 24, 2014, the
19 Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $400.00 filing fee in full or file an application to proceed
20 in forma pauperis within thirty days. Plaintiff failed to comply with the order and on December
21 17, 2014, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
22 motion seeking relief from the dismissal and judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
23

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court may correct a mistake arising

24 from oversight or omission, and it may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
25 based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;
26 (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) “extraordinary
27 circumstances” which would justify relief.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(a), (b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

28 Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff contends

1 that this case was dismissed in error because he complied with the order to file an in forma
2 pauperis application and he submits a copy of the application he filed. However, as evidenced by
3 the exhibit, Plaintiff filed the application to proceed in forma pauperis in his other civil rights case,
4 number 14-cv-01338-GSA (PC). Accordingly, the Court did not err in dismissing this action for
5 failure to obey its order and in the absence of any ground entitling Plaintiff to relief from the
6 dismissal and judgment, his motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b).
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 7, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2