Williams v. Fluaitt et al

Filing 158

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING denying ECF NO. 157 . Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (PH, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9
10

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING

v.

12
13

No. 2:12-CV-5017-JTR

JACKIE FLUAITT, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Rule 62.1 motion for an

17

indicative ruling.

18

Defendants are represented by Candie M. Dibble and Joseph T. Edwards.

19

ECF No. 157.

Plaintiff appears pro se.

On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff moved this Court, pursuant to Rule

20

60(b), to reconsider the Court's order dismissing Plaintiff's

21

complaint.

22

lacked jurisdiction to address Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for

23

reconsideration.

24

Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider its June 4, 2014,

25

order and provide an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 62.1(a).

26

No. 157.

ECF No. 149.

On June 4, 2014, the Court concluded it

ECF No. 154; see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(vi).

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING - 1

ECF

1

Rule 62.1 provides relief pending appeal "[i]f a timely motion is

2

made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an

3

appeal that has been docketed and is pending . . . ."

4

62.1(a) (emphasis added).

5

order, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4) provides that the district court may

6

retain jurisdiction if a party files a motion for relief under Rule 60

7

"no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered."

8

4(a)(4)(vi).

9

months after the filing of the notice of appeal and more than five

10

months after the entry of judgment, was substantially untimely and

11

thus failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(vi).

12

Because Plaintiff's motion is not a "timely motion", Rule 62.1(a) does

13

not provide Plaintiff an avenue for relief pending his appeal.

14

Court notes, in any event, that it appears Plaintiff's motion fails to

15

raise a substantial issue or otherwise warrant reconsideration.

16
17
18

Fed.R.Civ.P.

As stated in the Court's June 4, 2014,

Fed.R.App.P.

Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion, filed more than three

The

Plaintiff's Rule 62.1 motion for an indicative ruling, ECF No.
157, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The District Court Executive is hereby

19

directed to enter this order and furnish copies to Plaintiff and

20

counsel for Defendants.

21

DATED this

23rd

day of June, 2014.

22

s/Lonny R. Suko
23
24

Lonny R. Suko
Senior United States District Judge

25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING - 2