Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02474/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

WO LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Eugene Wuthrich, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2474-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights action. Presently pending is a “Motion Objecting to

Order.” See Dkt. #10. The Court will deny the motion.

A. Procedural History.

Previously, the Court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim. See Dkt. #4.

The Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations implied the invalidity of his conviction for failing

to register as a sex offender and that the action was premature because he had not shown a

“favorable termination” of his conviction.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. See Dkt. #8. He then filed the presently pending

“Motion Objecting to Order,” contending that the Court misread his pleadings and the

Defendants “severely abused” him. See Dkt. #10.

Plaintiff then filed another notice of appeal. See Dkt. #11. His appeal was dismissed

for failure to prosecute. See Wuthrich v. Arpaio, No. 05-15618 (9th Cir.) (Sept. 27, 2005

Ord.) (copy at Dkt. #13). Plaintiff then filed a motion to reinstate, which was denied without

Case 2:04-cv-02474-SMM--ECV Document 16 Filed 12/06/05 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

- 2 -

prejudice to filing a renewed motion accompanied by the appellate filing fee and a response

showing cause why this court should not be affirmed. Id. (Nov. 1, 2005 Ord.) (copy at Dkt.

#15). It is unclear whether Plaintiff will file a renewed motion accompanied by the fee.

B. “Motion Objecting to Order”

Because Plaintiff submitted his “Motion Objecting to Order” after entry of judgment,

the Court must treat it either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Ironworks & Erectors,

Inc. v. North Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A Rule 59 motion

must be filed within ten days of entry of judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Judgment was

entered on February 4, 2005, and Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion was received on May 4,

2005, or three months later. Consequently, the motion must be treated under Rule 60(b). 

The district court is stripped of jurisdiction when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed after the

filing of a notice of appeal. Katzir’s Floor and Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d

1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (dkt. #8) and then filed his Rule

60(b) motion. Consequently, the Court must deny the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the “Motion Objection to Order” (Dkt. #10),

construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, is denied.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02474-SMM--ECV Document 16 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2