Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00171/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00171-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18cv171-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LAROCHE (#342, OFFICER/PATROL 

DIVISION; A. BOYER (#349), 

OFFICER/PATROL DIVISION; J. 

PERHAM (#341), OFFICER/PATROL 

DIVISION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv171-CAB-BGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE [Doc. No. 39]

On May 14, 2019, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 

extension to appeal dismissal of case and request for court-appointed attorney. [Doc. No. 

38.] On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Court’s May 14, 2019 order,

which the Court views as a motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 29.] On June 28, 

2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

[Doc. No. 40.]

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they 

are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. 

See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-00171-CAB-BGS Document 41 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv171-CAB-BGS

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

1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change 

of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 

364, 369 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 

713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence justifying reconsideration. In his 

previous motion for extension of time to appeal, Plaintiff acknowledged that he received 

notice of the judgment on January 8, 2019. Now Plaintiff claims he was not able to 

access a law library until February 11, 2019. This does not change the analysis under 

FRAP 4(a)(5)(A), as the motion to extend was filed beyond the 30-day deadline. And 

even if the Court were to construe February 11, 2019, as the date Plaintiff received notice 

of the judgment under FRAP 4(a)(6), it is still untimely because the motion to extend the 

time to appeal was not filed within 14 days after receipt of the judgment. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00171-CAB-BGS Document 41 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2