Connor v. CDC Folsom Mail Room

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/15/2015 DENYING 16 Motion for Reconsideration. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THYRONE CONNOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-CV-1685-JAM-CMK-P

v.

ORDER

CDC FOLSOM MAIL ROOM,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 16) for reconsideration of

19

the court’s June 2, 2015, final judgment.
The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of

20
21

Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is

22

appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart,

23

778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also

24

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later

25

than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion appears to be untimely. Final judgment was entered on June 2,

2

2015. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on July 22, 2015. Because the motion is not dated and is not

3

accompanied by a proof of service or any statement as to when it was delivered to prison officials

4

for mailing, it is impossible to assign an earlier filing date pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

5

266 (1988).

6

In any event, plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for reconsideration. Here,

7

plaintiff’s case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Specifically, plaintiff

8

failed to resolve the fee status for the case. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument that the court failed

9

to properly consider whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction, a review of the record

10

reflects that the court considered all the relevant factors. See Findings and Recommendations at

11

Doc. 12.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 16) for

13

reconsideration is denied.

14

DATED: October 15, 2015

15

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2