Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05603/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05603-10/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 Plaintiff’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR old\Cr.02\Jenkins603mtns.wpd

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

C/O CAPLAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5603 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY

Plaintiff Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a third amended civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and employees of Central Training

Facility, Soledad, where plaintiff was housed. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his Eighth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force and his First Amendment right to be free from

retaliation. On February 9, 2010, the court dismissed claims against all defendants except

defendant Caplan for failure to exhaust. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and plaintiff’s motion for a stay. For the reasons stated

below, plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Certificate of Appealability

On February 23, 2010, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Certificate of Appealability under

Federal Rule 60(b) . . .” Because the court’s February 9, 2010 order was not a “final” order, see

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 133 Filed 08/02/10 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR old\Cr.02\Jenkins603mtns.wpd

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), and a Certificate of Appealability is inapplicable to a § 1983 action, the

court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or

(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In the Northern District of California, no motion for

reconsideration may be brought without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local

Rule 7-9, the moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court before entry

of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the

time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law

occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material

facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, no response need be filed to a motion under the Local

Rule. See Civil L.R. 7-9(c). 

Here, plaintiff does not demonstrate any factors that warrant reconsideration. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

II. Motion for stay

On June 1, 2010, defendant Caplan filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 14,

2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a stay of the motion for summary judgment “until Ninth

Circuit’s decision.” This court was unable to discover, and the plaintiff has not provided, a case

number from the Ninth Circuit demonstrating that plaintiff has any appeal pending. Further,

because no final judgment has issued from this court regarding the underlying case, no appeal

would be appropriate at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a stay is DENIED. 

///

///

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 133 Filed 08/02/10 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR old\Cr.02\Jenkins603mtns.wpd 3

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for a

stay is DENIED. This order terminates docket numbers 121 and 132.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge 

7/30/10

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 133 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3