Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05265/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05265-1/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

GUILLERMO VERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,

 et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 98 5265 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 242-1)

 On August 25, 2003, this Court entered Judgment and terminated the instant action. 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment on September 11, 2003, which was denied by the

District Court on April 15, 2005. August 22, 2003, this Court adopted Findings and

Recommendations that the action be dismissed and the case closed. Judgment was entered on

August 25, 2003. 

On July 13, 2005, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of its Order

denying the Motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

On August 17, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. 

Case 1:98-cv-05265-OWW -LJO Document 248 Filed 09/06/05 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

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a timely notice of appeal is filed within

thirty days of the date the Judgment or Order is issued. Fed.R.App.P. 3. A party may move for

an extension of time if he so moves within thirty days after the time for filing a notice of appeal

expires, and he shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(5)(A). 

In this case, although Plaintiff is within the time frame for making his request for an

extension of time, he fails to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause. Plaintiff’s request is

based on his desire to wait “adjudication of his Petition for Rehearing,” however, there is no such

petition pending in this court. Even had Plaintiff moved for rehearing this Court, this Court is

not an appellate Court and therefore, does not review cases by way of a rehearing. Moreover,

Plaintiff’s prior Motions, including a Motion to Vacate Judgment, Motion to Amend its Findings

and Motion for Reconsideration have all been denied and Plaintiff has been expressly warned

that the Court would entertain no further motions. 

Accordingly, based on the above, Plaintiff’s request for time to file a Petition for

Rehearing is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-05265-OWW -LJO Document 248 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2