Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-CV-6496-REC-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO

TUNC TO AUGUST 5, 2005

(Docs. 174 and 176)

ORDER DENYING RULE 59(E) MOTION

(Doc. 178)

On July 20, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a fifteen day extension of time to file a

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order

denying him motion for leave to amend. (Doc. 174.) On August 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a second

motion seeking a fifteen day extension of time to file a Rule 59 motion. (Doc. 176.) On August 5,

2005, pursuant to Rule 59(e), plaintiff filed a motion seeking to alter or amend judgment.

Plaintiff’s two motions seeking an extension of time are HEREBY GRANTED nunc pro tunc

to August 5, 2005, the date plaintiff filed his Rule 59(e) motion.

Rule 59 governs new trials and amendments of judgment. Rule 59(e), cited to by plaintiff

in his motion, provides that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within ten days after

entry of judgment.

///

///

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 191 Filed 10/26/05 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

No trial has been held in this action and judgment has not been entered. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion is baseless and is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 191 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2