### Michael S. Gorbey, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED APR 

## 102009 NANCYMAYERWHITTINGTON,CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT



### v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No. 09-262 (UNA) United States Dep'tofJustice 

### etai., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, filed apro se complaint that was dismissed by order entered February 10,2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A(b). In a submission received by the clerk on March 19, 2009, the plaintiff has moved for reconsideration ofthis court's dismissal and for an extension oftime to notice an appeal ifreconsideration is denied. Forthe reasons stated, the motion for reconsideration will be denied, the motion for an extension oftime to appeal will be denied as moot, and the Clerk will be directed to notice the plaintiffs timely appeal. A motion to alter or amend thejudgmentunder Rule 59(e) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure must be filed within 10 days ofentry of judgment. "Rule 59(e) motions are expressly limited to the 10-day period following entry of judgment, and the District Court simply has no power to extend that time limitation." Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. V Us. Nuclear Regulatory Comm 'n, 781 F.2d 935, 941 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion

must be denied as untimely to the extent that it was intended as a Rule 59(e) motion. A motion for relieffromjudgmentunder Rule 60(b) need not be filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment, and plaintiffs motion for reconsideration will be construed as one filed 

# irfJttP.WO(b)(6), which allows a court to alter or provide relieffrom a final order "upon suchterms as arejust," for any "reasonjustifyingrelieffrom the operation ofthejudgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6), however, should only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." PioneerInvestment Servo Co. v. BrunswickAssoc. LimitedPartnership, 507 U.S. 380,393 (1993); see also, Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that the remedy should be "sparingly used"). The gist ofplaintiffs motion is that the court was wrong onthe law and should not have dismissed his complaint. Plaintiffs motion, however, offers no argument that is availing, and provides no basis for providing relieffrom thejudgment. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion, considered as one under Rule 60(b)(6), will be denied. Plaintiffhas also moved for an extension oftime to notice an appeal in the event that his motion for reconsideration is denied. Because the United States is a party to this case, the plaintiffhas 60 days from the entry of judgment, on February 10,2009,to notice an appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs motion for an extension oftime was received by the Clerk's office on March 19,2009, well within the 60 days allowed for noticing an appeal. Because an extension oftime is unnecessary, the motion will be denied as moot and the Clerk will be directed to notice plaintiffs appeal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to extend the period to notice an appeal is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to notice plaintiffs appeal.

Date:

## ~~\

# aj**~'i** 2