Olajide v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 22, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OLANAPO AD OLAJIDE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04472-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND MOTION TO AMEND OR
ALTER JUDGMENT

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 55, 56

12
13

By order filed January 3, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss,

14

and dismissed the operative pleading, the Second Amended Complaint, without further

15

leave to amend. The following day, January 4, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered

16

judgment on the Court's order of dismissal. Thereafter, by order filed January 13, 2017,

17

the Court denied plaintiff's motion, filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure, to amend or alter the judgment, finding plaintiff had failed to identify any

19

cognizable basis for relief under Rule 59(e).

20

Now before the Court is plaintiff's second "Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment on

21

Court Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," filed February 2, 2017, by which

22

plaintiff again seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). Having read and considered plaintiff's

23

motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.1

24

A motion for relief under Rule 59(e) "must be filed no later than 28 days after the

25

entry of judgment." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff filed the instant motion 29 days

26

after entry of judgment, and, consequently, the motion is untimely. A "district court has

27
1

28

Plaintiff's request that the motion be heard telephonically is DENIED as moot.

1

no discretion to consider a late [R]ule 59(e) motion," see Carter v. United States, 973

2

F.2d 1479, 1488 (9th Cir. 1992), as the time period set forth in Rule 59(e) is

3

"jurisdictional," see Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984).

4
5
6

Accordingly, plaintiff's second motion for relief under Rule 59(e) is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 22, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2