Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-01061/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-01061-0/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

- 1 - 01cv1061

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LAMONT MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 01 CV 1061 JM (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. RECONSIDERATION

WILLIAM B. KOLANDER, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint on June 12, 2001.

He claimed that he suffered racial segregation and overcrowding while housed at the South Bay

Detention Facility, in violation of his constitutional rights. On August 29, 2001, the court dismissed

the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)

and 1915A(b)(1). (Doc. no. 7.) Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a notice of

appeal. (See Doc. no. 9.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order of dismissal was not a final and appealable order. (See Doc. nos. 12, 14.) On January 15, 2002,

the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice so Plaintiff could appeal

the earlier order of dismissal. (Doc. no. 14.) 

On April 18, 2008, the court rejected a document entitled “Motion for Leave of Court to File

Belated Motion for Reconsideration” because the document failed to comply with the Civil Local

Rules. (Doc. no. 19 (the “Discrepancy Order”).) Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the

Discrepancy Order. (Doc. no. 21.) He argues that the court should not have dismissed the action “in

Case 3:01-cv-01061-JM-NLS Document 22 Filed 08/05/08 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

- 2 - 01cv1061

light of” Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005). (Mot. at 2.) The court construes this motion as

a motion to reconsider the 2001 order of dismissal, made final at Plaintiff’s request in the January 15,

2002 order. 

A district court may reconsider a final judgment “under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment).” Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff does not

identify the rule under which he seeks reconsideration. Because a party seeking reconsideration under

Rule 59(e) must file the motion no later than ten days after entry of judgment, Plaintiff cannot receive

relief under Rule 59(e). Furthermore, “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable

time,” and on some grounds no more than a year after entry of judgment. FRCP 60(c)(1). Plaintiff

neither identifies a meritorious basis for relief under Rule 60(b) nor demonstrates that he moved for

reconsideration “within a reasonable time.” The court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cv-01061-JM-NLS Document 22 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2