Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02366/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

W.D. FLIENT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 06-2366 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 49]

Before the Court is plaintiff W.D. Flient’s motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 49], filed on

June 8, 2007, along with a notice of appeal. On May 8, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motion

to dismiss and dismissed Flient’s complaint with prejudice. Whether analyzed under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), the motion for reconsideration must be denied. 

1. Timeliness under Rule 59(e)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend judgment

within ten days after entry of judgment. A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits

unless otherwise specified. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp., 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002); United

States v. Schimmels, 127 F.3d 875, 884 (9th Cir. 1997). The entry of judgment was therefore on May

8, 2007. The motion for reconsideration was filed on June 8, 2007. See Docket No. 49. Because Flient

filed the motion more than ten days after the entry of judgment, the motion is untimely under Rule 59(e).

2. Jurisdiction under Rule 60(b)

Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” based on a motion made within a reasonable time.

Once a notice of appeal is filed, however, a district court does not have jurisdiction to consider motions

to vacate judgment. See Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007); Williams v.

Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 419 (2005). Because the Court

Case 4:06-cv-02366-SBA Document 53 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

is without jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration, it is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 27, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02366-SBA Document 53 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

W.D. FLIENT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT et

al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-02366 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on June 28, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Woodrow W.D. Flient

P.O. Box 330284

San Francisco, CA 94133

Dated: June 28, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-02366-SBA Document 53 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3