Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03770/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03770-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin B. Fews
Plaintiff
Perez
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN B. FEWS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Lieutenant PEREZ,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-3770 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO RECONSIDER

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a motion to

reconsider.

Petitioner’s motion to reconsider was filed at the same time as the notice of appeal. 

Applying the “prison mailbox rule,” see Fed. R.App.P. 4(c) (notice of appeal); Schroeder v.

McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995) (filing Rule 59(e) motion), it appears that the

motion to reconsider may have been filed within ten days of the judgment, and thus be one

of the motions which is treated as extending the time to file a notice of appeal by Rule

4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This means that if the notice of

appeal is treated as having been filed after the motion to reconsider, this court has

jurisdiction to rule on the motion and the notice of appeal does not become effective until

the motion is ruled upon, see Fed. R.App.P 4(a)(4)B) (notice of appeal filed while certain

motions are pending not effective until such motions ruled upon), whereas if the notice of

appeal is treated as having been filed before the motion to reconsider, this court lacks

jurisdiction to rule upon it, see Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984). 

If the motion to reconsider was filed after the notice of appeal, the proper procedure

would be for plaintiff to ask the court to “entertain” the motion. Id. If the court were to

Case 4:03-cv-03770-PJH Document 51 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

decide to entertain it, the appellant could then ask the court of appeals to issue a limited

remand to allow the district court to decide the motion. Id. If the district court were to rule

that it would not entertain the motion, that ruling would be interlocutory in nature and not

appealable. Id. This procedure has recently been confirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Williams

v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 683-84 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The court concludes that it makes no difference whether the motion was filed before

or after the notice of appeal, because in either case it will be denied. 

The motion for summary judgment was granted on defendant’s contention that he

was entitled to qualified immunity. The grant was based on the second prong of the

Saucier qualified immunity test, whether a reasonable person in the position of defendant

would have known that he or she was violating plaintiff’s rights. See Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001). Most of plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is an argument that his

constitutional rights were violated, an argument which is not relevant to the basis for the

grant of summary judgment. 

Plaintiff does contend that he “has never viewed the Defendants[‘]s ‘Motion for

Summary judgment.[’]” Plaintiff does not explain how he filed an opposition to the motion

for summary judgment without seeing it, nor does he explain why he did not mention this in

his opposition and did not request a copy of the motion. The court also notes that plaintiff’s

notice of change of address was filed a month after the motion for summary judgment. 

In view of the above considerations, if the motion to reconsider (document number

44 on the docket) was filed before the notice of appeal, it is DENIED on the merits. 

Alternatively, if the motion was filed after the notice of appeal, the court is not disposed to

entertain the motion to reconsider, so a remand for ruling is not necessary, and the motion

is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.03\FEWS770.REC United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cv-03770-PJH Document 51 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2