Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01263/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01263-0/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 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vincent F. Rivera,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1263-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court in this closed case is Plaintiff’s “Motion To Reopen The

Judgment And Memorandum Of Law” (Doc. #15).

I. Procedural Background

On May 9, 2006, Plaintiff Vincent F. Rivera, confined in the Santa Rosa Correctional

Institute in Milton, Florida, filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. #1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff did not immediately pay the $350.00 filing fee but filed an uncertified "Motion For

Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis" with his Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed was deficient because it had not been certified by an

authorized officer of the institution and it did not include a certified copy of his trust fund

account statement for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.

Accordingly, by Order filed June 14, 2006 (Doc. #3), Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed was

denied without prejudice and Plaintiff was given 30 days to either pay the $350.00 filing fee

Case 2:06-cv-01263-MHM--DKD Document 16 Filed 03/27/08 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

- 2 -

or file an Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified copy of his trust fund

account statement for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the Court, by Order filed

September 13, 2006 (Doc. #5), dismissed the Complaint and this action without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judgment was entered on

September 13, 2006 (Doc. #6).

On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Notice Of Appeal/Application For A Certificate

Of Appealability” (Doc. #7). On February 27, 2007, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to prosecute. 

II. Motion to Reopen the Judgment

On March 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Motion To Reopen The Judgment And

Memorandum Of Law” (Doc. #15). Plaintiff brings his Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3)

and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise,

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a

satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify

relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993) (quoting Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)). Rule

60(c)(1) requires that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time -

and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order

or the date of the proceeding.” 

The Court’s judgment that Plaintiff seeks to reopen in his Motion was entered on

September 13, 2006 (Doc. #6). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot bring this Motion under Rule

60(b)(3) because he filed it well over a year after judgment was entered. 

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is also untimely to the extent that

Plaintiff brings it pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff

has not brought his Motion “within a reasonable time” when judgment was entered almost

Case 2:06-cv-01263-MHM--DKD Document 16 Filed 03/27/08 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

- 3 -

a year and a half before Plaintiff filed his Motion, and over a year after the Ninth Circuit

dismissed his appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied as untimely pursuant

to Rule 60(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Reopen The Judgment And

Memorandum Of Law” (Doc. #15) is denied.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01263-MHM--DKD Document 16 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3