Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Magee v. Bravo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 5, 2010

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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.

20100205

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.