Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05268/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05268-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD R. DEBOSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-5268 SI (pr)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

The court dismissed this action on April 28, 2015 because plaintiff had not filed the

amended complaint that was due on March 27, 2015. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

reconsideration, urging the court to set aside the dismissal because he had sent in a request for

extension of time on March 11, 2015 but did not receive ruling on that request before his

amended complaint was due or before the action was dismissed. (No ruling was made because

the court did not receive any request for extension of the deadline from plaintiff.) 

A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days

after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "'should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or

if there is an intervening change in the law."' McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). 

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Docket # 16. The order of dismissal

and judgment are now VACATED. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint curing the

deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal with leave to amend no later than June 22, 2015.

Case 3:14-cv-05268-SI Document 17 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 extensions of this deadline should be expected because plaintiff already had three months

to prepare his amended complaint before learning of the dismissal of the action, i.e., a diligent

plaintiff would have working on the amended complaint since receiving the February 25, 2012

order of dismissal with leave to amend until receiving the April 28, 2015 order of dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judges

Case 3:14-cv-05268-SI Document 17 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2