Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03223/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03223-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.08\Feaster223denrec.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT FEASTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN PAUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-3223 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 6)

On July 3, 2008, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). That same day,

the court notified plaintiff that he had thirty days to either pay the filing fee or file a completed

IFP application, or the case would be dismissed. On August 18, 2008, after receiving neither the

filing fee or a completed IFP application, the court dismissed the case without prejudice to

plaintiff filing a new action in which he either pays the filing fee or files a completed IFP

application. 

On August 28, 2008, plaintiff filed this motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b). He states that he submitted his IFP application to prison officials for processing on July

10, 2008, however, his application was returned unprocessed with directions for proper

submission. Plaintiff claims that he re-submitted his application, but the mailroom sargeant

*E-FILED - 10/16/08*

Case 5:08-cv-03223-RMW Document 8 Filed 10/16/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.08\Feaster223denrec.wpd

failed to process his application to meet the deadline.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the

grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief

that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century

- Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The court finds no grounds that warrant reconsideration. Petitioner has not indicated why

he did not present his explanation for not complying with the court’s deadline before the

deadline passed or requested an extension of time. Petitioner must keep track of his filings for

the court and seek more time, if he needs it, prior to the filing of the deadline. Petitioner may not

wait until after the deadline, and after the court’s dismissal, to present an explanation for failing

to comply. The court also notes that this action was dismissed without prejudice so petitioner

may file a new action with which he either timely submits a completed IFP application or pays

the filing fee.

The motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 6) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

10/15/08

Case 5:08-cv-03223-RMW Document 8 Filed 10/16/08 Page 2 of 2