Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01475/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01475-3/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

BRYANT FRANK WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01475-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM DISMISSAL AND JUDGMENT

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Bryant Frank Wilson, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 22, 2014. On September 24, 2014, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $400.00 filing fee in full or file an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis within thirty days. Plaintiff failed to comply with the order and on December 

17, 2014, the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion seeking relief from the dismissal and judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court may correct a mistake arising 

from oversight or omission, and it may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 

based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 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. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(a), (b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff contends 

Case 1:14-cv-01475-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/08/15 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

that this case was dismissed in error because he complied with the order to file an in forma 

pauperis application and he submits a copy of the application he filed. However, as evidenced by 

the exhibit, Plaintiff filed the application to proceed in forma pauperis in his other civil rights case, 

number 14-cv-01338-GSA (PC). Accordingly, the Court did not err in dismissing this action for 

failure to obey its order and in the absence of any ground entitling Plaintiff to relief from the 

dismissal and judgment, his motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01475-SKO Document 13 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2