UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 5, 2010
RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, PLAINTIFF,
D. BRAVO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION (Doc. 86)
Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered in this case.
On June 19, 2007, a findings and recommendations was entered recommending dismissal of this action due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. #58.) On July 23, 2007, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations, noting that Plaintiff had not filed any objections. (Doc. #59.) On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action. (Doc. #62.) Plaintiff filed a "motion for judgment" on March 17, 2008 (doc. #67) and a motion to reopen this case on March 20, 2008 (doc. #68). Plaintiff's motions were denied on March 27, 2008 and April 28, 2008. (Doc. #69, 75.) Plaintiff also appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit on August 21, 2007. (Doc. #63.) Plaintiff's appeal was denied on November 21, 2007. (Doc. #66.) The Ninth Circuit's order ruled that "[n]o motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket." Plaintiff filed a second appeal to the Ninth Circuit on April 7, 2008. (Doc. #72.) Plaintiff's second appeal was denied on June 12, 2008. (Doc. #82.) Again, the Ninth Circuit informed Plaintiff that "[n]o motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket." Further, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), a motion seeking relief from a final judgment must be made within a reasonable time. Plaintiff's motion seeks to vacate a judgment over two years old. Plaintiff's motion has not been made within a reasonable time.
Plaintiff is hereby forewarned that should he continue to file frivolous and/or duplicative motions, he will be subject to sanctions.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment, filed on May 29, 2009, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.