Brown v. Unknown

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 33 Motion for relief from judgmentfor administrative justice; denying 34 Motion for relief from judgmentfor administrative justice (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
KEENAN G. WILKINS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-2704 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING POSTJUDGMENT MOTIONS
(Docket Nos. 33, 34)

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights
17
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 1, 2012, the court dismissed this action
18
without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. On
19
September 1, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for failure to
20
prosecute. On November 8, 2012, this court denied plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration.
21
On July 26, 2013, and August 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment
22
under Rule 60(b)(1), and a motion for administrative justice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23
60(b)(1) permits a court to reopen judgments for reasons of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
24
excusable neglect, but only on motion made within one year of the judgment.” Pioneer Inv.
25
Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993) (internal
26
quotation marks omitted). If a 60(b)(1) motion is untimely, the district court lacks jurisdiction to
27
consider the merits of the motion. Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989).
28
Order Denying Post-Judgment Motions
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Wilkins704rec2.wpd

1

Here, the judgment was entered on May 1, 2012. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for relief under Rule

2

60(b)(1) is DENIED as untimely.

3

Plaintiff’s motion for administrative justice requests the court to identify for plaintiff the

4

claims and defendants mentioned in plaintiff’s second amended complaint that can be properly

5

joined under Rules 18 and 20. The court cannot give legal advice. Plaintiff’s motion for

6

administrative justice is DENIED.

7

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
DATED:

10/3/13

10

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Post-Judgment Motions
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Wilkins704rec2.wpd

2