K'napp v. Brown et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/17/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 18 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-CV-0742-KJM-CMK-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 18) for reconsideration of the 19 court’s June 8, 2018 order and final judgment. 20 The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of 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). Under Rule 26 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; 27 (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest 28 injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1 1 1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 2 (1988); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord 3 School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any 5 order based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the court’s own motion 6 and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and 7 docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is 8 pending. See id. 9 Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and 10 any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 11 (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered 12 within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an 13 opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a 14 reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. 15 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 16 Plaintiff states that he is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). Plaintiff 17 argues the court should vacate the final judgment in this case because it failed to give any 18 considerations to his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s March 30, 2018 findings and 19 recommendations. According to plaintiff, he submitted his objections to prison officials for 20 mailing to the court on May 3, 2018. The docket reflects that objections were given the filing 21 date of June 15, 2018, which is the date on which they were received by the court as reflected by 22 the date stamp on the objections’ first page. The proof of service attached to the objections does 23 not indicate service on the court at all, and so there is no basis before the court for identifying an 24 earlier filing date. 25 In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a pro se 26 prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed “filed” at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for 27 mailing to the court. The so-called “prison mailbox rule” has been extended to apply to other 28 legal documents submitted to the court by prisoners. See, e.g., Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 2 1 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying rule to prisoner’s habeas corpus petition); see also Huizar v. 2 Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing rule in context of “prisoner who delivers 3 a document to prison authorities”); Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating rule 4 in terms of any “legal document” submitted by a pro se prisoner). In this case, plaintiff has not 5 established the date he delivered his objections to prison officials for mailing to the court because 6 the proof of service does not indicate that the document was mailed to the court. Petitioner has 7 not met his burden of demonstrating he qualifies for application of the mailbox rule, particularly 8 given the lengthy period of time that elapsed before his objections made it to the court. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 10 reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied. 11 DATED: September 17, 2018. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?