Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02535/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02535-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In Re

MALINKA MOYE,

Plaintiff.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-2533 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2535 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2786 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2787 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2788 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2790 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2792 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2793 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2794 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2859 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-2878 EMC (pr)

No. C-14-3235 EMC (pr)

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT

MOTIONS

These pro se civil rights actions were dismissed in late September - early October 2014. 

Within a few days after (or in a few actions, before) the entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed in each

action an ex parte application opposing dismissal and/or an ex parte declaration opposing dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s application and declarations opposing the dismissals are construed in each action to be a 

motion for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Docket # 23

in Case No. C 14-2533 EMC; Docket # 22 in Case No. C 14-2535 EMC; Docket # 18 in Case No. C

14-2786 EMC; Docket # 20 in Case No. C 14-2787 EMC; Docket # 18 in Case No. C 14-2788

EMC; Docket # 19 in Case No. C 14-2790 EMC; Docket # 21 in Case No. C 14-2792 EMC; Docket

# 22 in Case No. C 14-2793 EMC; Docket # 22 in Case No. C 14-2794 EMC; Docket # 16 in Case

No. C 14-2859 EMC; Docket # 15 in Case No. C 14-2878 EMC; and Docket # 18 in Case No. C 14-

3235 EMC. In each action, the motion for relief from the judgment is DENIED because Plaintiff

does not identify any basis for setting aside the judgment; he does not identify any of the listed

Case 3:14-cv-02535-EMC Document 29 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

reasons or even provide a reason that might fit under Rule 60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision for relief

from the judgment. His mere disagreement with, or opposition to, a dismissal is not a proper ground

to set that dismissal aside.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02535-EMC Document 29 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2