Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00603/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00603-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to resolve the Motion to Reconsider

notwithstanding the subsequent filing of the Notice of Appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

2

 It is not clear to the Court whether the Motion to Reconsider should be construed as a

motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or one pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because the Court

cannot tell from the motion exactly when the plaintiff submitted the motion to the prison staff for

mailing to the Court. See American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Construction

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule

59(e) motion if filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, otherwise it is treated as a Rule

60(b) motion). See also, Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995) (Prison

(continued...)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson, )) Plaintiff, ) No. CV-04-0603-PHX-PGR ) vs. )) ORDER N. Nelson, et al., )) Defendants. ) ) 

The Court dismissed the remaining portion of this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) on March 31, 2006; it entered its judgment of dismissal (doc.

#38) that same day. The plaintiff's pending Motion to Reconsider (doc. #39) was

formally filed with the Court on April 6, 2006, and the plaintiff's Notice of Appeal

(doc. #40) from the judgment was formally filed with the Court on April 18, 2006.

Having considered the Motion to Reconsider1

, the Court finds that the

motion should be denied.2 The motion does not present the Court with newly

Case 2:04-cv-00603-PGR-VAM Document 44 Filed 05/25/06 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

(...continued)

"mailbox rule" applies to Rule 59(e) motions.) The Court need not resolve the issue because

the motion is not meritorious under either rule.

- 2 -

discovered evidence, establish that there has been an intervening change in the

controlling law, or persuade the Court that its order of dismissal was clearly

erroneous or manifestly unjust as a matter of law, School District No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994) (pertaining to Rule 59(e) motions), and it in effect

merely reiterates arguments that the plaintiff has already presented to the Court.

Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) (pertaining to Rule 60(b)

motions). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (doc. #39) is

denied.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00603-PGR-VAM Document 44 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2