Akbar v. Barretto

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/7/2017 DENYING 21 Motion for Reconsideration. The Clerk shall close this case and no further filings shall be docketed. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAHDEE ABDUL AKBAR Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-00140 GGH v. ORDER JENNIFER BARRETTO, Defendant. 16 17 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff was a proceeding in pro se in this action that was originally brought as a petition 19 for habeas corpus in the Northern District of California. The matter was transferred to this court 20 by Northern District Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on January 19, 2017. ECF No. 4. On 21 February 28, 2017, this court dismissed the transferred complaint without prejudice to permit 22 filing of an amended complaint alleging violation of plaintiff’s civil rights under 28 U.S.C. 23 section 1983 within 30 days of the issuance of the Order if he so chose. ECF No. 14. This Order 24 also notified plaintiff that his failure to comply with its terms could lead to a dismissal with 25 prejudice. On March 7, 2017 this court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 26 ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed no amended complaint, but he did request appointment of counsel. 27 ECF No. 18. The request for counsel was denied and the plaintiff’s action was dismissed with 28 1 1 prejudice for failure to follow the court’s directions to file an amended complaint in conformity 2 with the terms found in the Order filed April 10, 2017. ECF No. 19. Judgment was entered on 3 the same date. ECF No. 20. On June 1, 2017 plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 4 dismissal and entry of judgment. ECF No. 21. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiff does not address his failure to file an amended complaint in this motion. Instead 7 he asserts that Judge Thelton Henderson of the Northern District ordered some relief in this case 8 before it was transferred. There is, however, no order by Judge Henderson in the record of this 9 case and, in fact, Judge Henderson was never assigned this case while it was pending in his 10 11 District. The court will construe plaintiff’s Motion as having been brought under Federal Rule of 12 Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits the court to relieve a party from a final judgment for one of 13 the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly 14 discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 15 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, release, or discharged; or (6) any other 16 reason that justifies relief. None of these bases exist in the present case, and therefore the 17 judgment must stand. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, the Clerk shall close this case, and no further filings shall be docketed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2017 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?