Smith v. Hart et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/4/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 14 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREG SMITH,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1832 CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
TIM HART, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On December 1, 2014, the court received a motion from plaintiff asking that the court
18
reconsider the November 20, 2014 order dismissing this action for plaintiff’s failure to timely-file
19
an amended complaint. A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of
20
Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,
21
5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
22
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
23
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. On
24
August 13, 2014, plaintiff consented to have all matters in this action before a United States
25
Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
26
On October 10, 2014, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an
27
amended complaint within 30 days of service of the order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to
28
file an amended complaint in compliance with the order would result in dismissal.
1
1
Under Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an additional 3 days is added to
2
the time within which a party must act, if commencement of the time within which a party must
3
act begins with service of a document. Also, a document submitted by a prisoner is generally
4
deemed filed in court the day the document is submitted to prison officials for mailing. See
5
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988). Accordingly, plaintiff had 33 days following
6
October 10, 2014, until November 12, 2014, within which to submit his amended complaint to
7
prison officials for mailing.
8
9
Plaintiff’s amended complaint was received by the court the day judgment was entered.
In the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts under the penalty of perjury that he gave his amended
10
complaint to prison officials for mailing on November 13, 2014, one day late. Accordingly,
11
plaintiff’s argument that his amended complaint was timely-filed must be rejected and his motion
12
for reconsideration denied.
13
Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the amended complaint filed by plaintiff and finds
14
that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted as the deficiencies in plaintiff’s
15
original complaint, identified in the court’s October 10, 2014 order, have not been cured.
16
Therefore, even if the court were to grant plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the amended
17
complaint would be screened out pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 1, 2014 motion for
19
reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is denied.
20
Dated: December 4, 2014
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
carr0215.mfr
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?