DuRoss v. California State Prison et al
Filing
34
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/5/2017 ORDERING that plaintiff's 32 motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED and his 31 amended complaint is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff is further informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARK ANTHONY DUROSS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1872-GEB-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On June 14, 2017, the court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
judgment was duly entered. ECF Nos. 26, 27. Plaintiff now moves to vacate the judgment. ECF
No. 32. He has also filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 31.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of a final
judgment where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation,
or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment;
and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration on
any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time, and no later than one year, of the
entry of the judgment or the order being challenged. Id. Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires
1
1
a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show the “new or different facts or circumstances
2
claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other
3
grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j).
4
Here, plaintiff appears to disagree with the court’s disposition of his case and its
5
imposition of a filing fee. He has not, however, shown that he satisfies any of the grounds for
6
relief provided by Rule 60(b).
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment
8
(ECF No. 32) is denied and his amended complaint (ECF No. 31) is disregarded. Plaintiff is
9
further informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not
10
11
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dated: October 5, 2017
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?