Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. BRAVO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 86)

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the

judgment entered in this case.

On June 19, 2007, a findings and recommendations was entered recommending dismissal of

this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. #58.) 

On July 23, 2007, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations, noting that Plaintiff had not

filed any objections. (Doc. #59.) On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint and the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of

this action. (Doc. #62.) Plaintiff filed a “motion for judgment” on March 17, 2008 (doc. #67) and

a motion to reopen this case on March 20, 2008 (doc. #68). Plaintiff’s motions were denied on

March 27, 2008 and April 28, 2008. (Doc. #69, 75.) Plaintiff also appealed the dismissal to the

Ninth Circuit on August 21, 2007. (Doc. #63.) Plaintiff’s appeal was denied on November 21,

2007. (Doc. #66.) The Ninth Circuit’s orderruled that “[n]o motions for reconsideration, rehearing,

clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed

1

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 87 Filed 02/05/10 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

docket.” Plaintiff filed a second appeal to the Ninth Circuit on April 7, 2008. (Doc. #72.) Plaintiff’s

second appeal was denied on June 12, 2008. (Doc. #82.) Again, the Ninth Circuit informed Plaintiff

that “[n]o motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other

submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket.” Further, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(c)(1), a motion seeking relief from a final judgment must be made within a reasonable

time. Plaintiff’s motion seeks to vacate a judgment over two years old. Plaintiff’s motion has not

been made within a reasonable time.

Plaintiff is hereby forewarned that should he continue to file frivolous and/or duplicative

motions, he will be subject to sanctions.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment, filed on

May 29, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 87 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2