Mills v. Mitchell et al
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE as to 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 31 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment : Responses due by 4/20/2018; Replies due by 5/4/2018. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-05095-HSG
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
K. MITCHELL, et al.,
Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed the instant pro se action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed this action without
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. ECF Nos. 31 and 32.
On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 36. Because
judgment has been entered in this case, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is construed as a
motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898‒99 (9th Cir. 2001)
(where ruling has resulted in final judgment or order, reconsideration motion may be based either
on Rule 59(e) (alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure). Defendants shall file an opposition to this motion by April 20, 2018.
Plaintiff shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?