Holgerson v. Knowles et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/26/2010 ORDERING that as plaintiff's 31 motion was not filed until more than two years after judgment was entered, it would necessarily be denied as untimely. The court will issue no response to future filings not authorized by the civil or appellate procedural rules.(Duong, D)

(PC) Holgerson v. Knowles et al

Doc. 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et. al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a prisoner without counsel, commenced an action in this court seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 19, 2008, the district judge dismissed this action and the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. However, on August 31, 2010, plaintiff filed a letter to the court asking that the case be reopened. Plaintiff's rambling letter states, inter alia, that his legal mail was doused with chemicals that caused brain damage, that the National Security Agency assaulted his mother, and that he is not he is not "partitioned or separated neurologically" into the "thought centers" that most people have. Even if the court were to construe plaintiff's letter as a motion for relief from a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, such motions must be filed within a "reasonable time." As plaintiff's motion was not filed until more than two years after judgment was entered, it would necessarily be denied as untimely.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MATTHEW FORREY HOLGERSON, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0248 JKS EFB P

ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The court will issue no response to future filings not authorized by the civil or appellate procedural rules. Dated: August 26, 2010.

2