Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01114-2/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

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR WARDENS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01114-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff Charles Fordjour (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who filed this action pro se. On July

26, 2007, plaintiff filed a self-titled “Criminal Complaint” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18

U.S.C. § 242 against prison officials. (Doc. 1.) The action was dismissed on August 6, 2007, and

plaintiff now seeks reconsideration. (Docs. 3, 8.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the Court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

Case 1:07-cv-01114-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/20/07 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 Plaintiff may reach the United States Attorney’s Office at 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401, Fresno, 1

California, 93721.

2

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.”

Plaintiff argues that his complaint was misinterpreted and he was seeking to have the Court

refer his complaint to the United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Plaintiff contends that

the Court has the authority to do so pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3041.

Plaintiff misunderstands section 3041, which defines the power of the courts and magistrates

with respect to arrest and commitment. Further, the Court’s dismissal order does not stand for the

proposition that prison officials cannot be criminally prosecuted for violating plaintiff’s civil rights.

Rather, the Court does not accept criminal complaints submitted by citizens and refer them to the

U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The U.S. Attorney’s Office determines when and if to file

federal criminal charges. If plaintiff wishes to request that criminal charges be filed against prison

officials for violation of sections 241 and 242, he must contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office directly.1

As plaintiff was previously notified, if he wishes seek relief through the Court, he must file a civil

complaint requesting relief for the violation of his federal rights. Plaintiff was provided with a

complaint form at the time this action was dismissed.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01114-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/20/07 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

There are no grounds to set aside the Court’s order dismissing this action, and plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration, filed August 14, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01114-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 3