Cox v. Vega et al, No. 3:2009cv02392 - Document 17 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT re 16 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/18/2009: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cox v. Vega et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 WILLIAM M. COX, JR, No. C 09-02392 SI 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT v. JOSE VEGA; DOCTOR POTTS; and UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, 11 Defendants. / 12 13 On August 18, 2009, this Court entered an order determining that pro se plaintiff William Cox’s 14 complaint and amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 15 Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered. For these 16 reasons, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was denied. 17 On September 3, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion captioned “Proof of Income Reinstate My Case.” 18 Plaintiff has submitted what purports to be documentation of his disability benefits, to demonstrate that 19 he is unable to pay a filing fee. The Court will interpret this filing as a motion for relief from final 20 judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff’s instant motion does not remedy the deficiencies in 21 plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is DENIED. [Docket No. 16] 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: September 11, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
