Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04370/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04370-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN CARLISLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD RUMSFELD,

Defendant /

No. C 05-4370 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT

By order filed April 13, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff to serve defendant with the

summons and complaint no later than July 31, 2006, and to file proof of such service with

the Clerk of the Court no later than August 4, 2006. The Court cautioned plaintiff that if he

failed to timely serve defendant or timely file proof of service, the action would be dismissed

without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because plaintiff failed to file proof of service by August 4, 2006, the Court, by order filed

August 11, 2006, dismissed the above-titled action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m),

and, on August 14, 2006, the Clerk entered judgment thereon.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s Request for Reinstatement (“Request”), filed

September 15, 2006, asserting plaintiff timely served defendant and purporting to attach

proof of such service. Because judgment has been entered, the Court construes the

Request as a motion to set aside the judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Case 3:05-cv-04370-MMC Document 19 Filed 09/26/06 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

“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a

final judgment . . . for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or

discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise

vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;

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

60(b).

Plaintiff’s Request fails to identify any facts that even arguably implicate any of the

above-referenced grounds. In any event, the documents attached thereto are insufficient

to demonstrate plaintiff served defendant with the summons and complaint in accordance

with Rule 4(i) at any time, let alone by the deadline of July 31, 2006.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Request for Reinstatement, construed as a motion to set

aside the judgment, is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04370-MMC Document 19 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2