Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK CONRAD FAUROT II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT )

EXECUTIVE OFFICER RODD H. )

 BARTON, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-1005 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document #24)

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, has filed

this action against Clerks at the Kings County Superior Court. Plaintiff contends that Clerks

have failed to file his state habeas corpus petition.

On October 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations

recommending that the complaint be dismissed for failure state a claim. On November 29, 2007,

the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and dismissed the complaint without leave

to amend. 

On December 3, 2007, Petitioner filed objections. 

On December 7, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal.

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 4
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

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 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 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

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 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Pursuant to Rule 59(e), any motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than

ten days after entry of judgment. Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1)

the district court is presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed

clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening

change in controlling law. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9 Cir. 2001); th

School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). th

This showing is a “high hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9 Cir. 2001). Federal

th

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district court. 

Rule 60(b) 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, . . .

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 4
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’s verified motion states that he received the Findings and Recommendations 1

on October 26, 2007. The court notes that a court generated document is considered filed when

it is filed by the Clerk of the Court, not when Plaintiff receives the document. The “mailbox

rule” states that an incarcerated pro se litigant’s filing requirement is met when the pro se litigant

delivers a document to prison authorities for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270

(1988). There is no converse rule that deems a court generated document not filed until an

incarcerated pro se litigant receives the document. 

The proof of service on the objections states that they were mailed on November 28,

2007, over thirty days after both the date October 24, 2007 date on which the Findings and

Recommendations were filed and the October 26, 2007 on which Plaintiff received them. The

proof of service states the objections were given to prison officials for photocopying on

November 26, 2007. The “mailbox rule” does not assist Plaintiff as to the date of filing his

objections. The “mailbox rule” applies when a document is delivered to prison authorities for

mailing, not when the document is delivered for photocopying. See Houston, 487 U.S. at 270. 

Thus, under the “mailbox rule”, Plaintiff did not file his objections until November 28, 2007. 

3

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.

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner contends that the court failed to consider his objections because the court gave

him 30 days to file objections but when adopting the Findings and Recommendations, the

undersigned mistakenly found that Petitioner only had 10 days in which to object. The court

has reviewed the applicable Findings and Recommendations. The Findings and

Recommendations gave Plaintiff thirty days to file objections. The order adopting the Findings

tand Recommendations erroneously states that the Findings and Recommendations only gave ten

days. However, the court did not adopt the Findings and Recommendations until November 25,

2007, more than thirty days after Plaintiff received the Findings and Recommendations. Thus,

1

it was not improper for the court to adopt the Findings and Recommendations after one month. 

Regardless, even if the court considered the objections, they present no basis to not adopt

the Findings and Recommendations or vacate judgment. While Petitioner clearly disagrees with

this court’s finding that the Clerk’s failure to process his petition states a claim, nothing in the

objections causes this court to think its earlier rational was in error.

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 01/07/08 Page 3 of 4
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 4

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 01/07/08 Page 4 of 4