Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00957/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00957-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Respondent
Timothy Doyle Young
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 10-cv-00957-SBA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

On November 10, 2010, the Court dismissed the instant action without prejudice 

based on Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee or to comply with the deadline for 

remedying the deficiencies in his in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 19. Petitioner 

appealed the dismissal. Dkt. 21. On January 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 

dismissal and issued its mandate on May 11, 2012. Dkt. 27, 28. 

On September 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion entitled, “Rule #60,” which is 

liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of this action. 

Dkt. 30. Petitioner now seeks reconsideration—more than three years after the Ninth 

Circuit’s affirmance—of the Court’s November 10, 2010 Order of Dismissal “due to fraud 

and perjury.” Dkt. 30 at 1. No facts or argument are presented in support of that 

contention. Moreover, with the mandate having been issued, the instant action has been 

finally concluded, meaning that no further action will be taken in this case. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. 30. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/2/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-00957-SBA Document 32 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 1