Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02383/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02383-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS A. GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2383 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. PONTAROLO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 24, 2006, this civil rights action was dismissed for failure to state a

federal claim upon which relief can be granted. On the same date, judgment was entered and the

case was closed. On February 2, 2006, within ten days after judgment was entered, plaintiff filed

a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate judgment.

In his motion, plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure vacating the judgment entered on January 24, 2006. Plaintiff asserts that his

motion is based on the papers and files in this matter and on “the memorandum of law under

People v. Mason . . . and People v. Lewis,” which appear to be two state law decisions issued in

1958. Plaintiff also refers to California Penal Code § 1265 and petitions for writ of error coram

nobis. There is no memorandum of law attached to the motion filed February 2, 2006.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02383-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 02/09/06 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

2

A party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment if the motion is filed

within 10 days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). If a timely motion is filed, the

time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the district court’s order disposing of the motion. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). In the present case, plaintiff’s notice of appeal is not effective to

appeal the January 24, 2006 judgment until this court enters an order resolving plaintiff’s timely

motion to vacate judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Because plaintiff’s notice of

appeal is not yet effective, this court has jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion. See Miller v.

Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002).

The court conducted a de novo review of this case on January 23, 2006. All

papers and files in this action were considered at that time. Plaintiff’s motion advances no

arguments, and the citations to state law do not suggest any basis for vacating judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2006 motion to vacate judgment is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED:February 9, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02383-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2