Young v. Bureau of Prisons
Filing
7
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrog, on 08/14/12 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2012) Modified on 8/15/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12
v.
(Docket no. 6)
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff,
10
11
No. C 12-1407 SBA (PR)
/
This case was opened when Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in
Florence, Colorado, filed a document entitled, "Habeas Corpus."
In an Order dated June 6, 2012, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claims were about the
conditions of his confinement rather than the fact of his confinement or the length of it. (June 6,
2012 Order at 1.) The Court found that a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather
than a federal habeas petition, is the proper way to raise such claims. (Id.) The Court construed this
case as a civil rights action, and determined that the proper venue for such an action is in the District
of Colorado, where the putative Defendants would be found and where the claims arose. (Id. (citing
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)).) Therefore, the Court transferred this action to the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.1 (Id. at 2.) The Court also directed the Clerk of the Court to recode this case under the following nature of suit: "555 Prisoner: Prison Condition." (Id.)
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff's case in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado has since been dismissed without prejudice on July 26, 2012 pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with that district court's June 14, 2012 Order and to cure
deficiencies. (July 26, 2012 Order in Case No. 12-cv-01540-LTB at 2.)
1
2
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the June 6, 2012 Order of
Transfer.
3
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration only upon a
4
showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
5
which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the
6
adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason
7
justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Subparagraph
8
(6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with
9
the court's order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, Plaintiff does not make a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
12
neglect. He does not set forth any newly discovered evidence or fraud. Nor does he set forth any
13
other reason justifying relief. Rather, Plaintiff simply makes a conclusory argument that he is
14
"requesting that this case is reinstated because of misconduct by the Defendant." (Mot. for Recons.
15
at 1.) He adds that the Bureau of Prisons is "withholding forms required by the Denver [United
16
States District Court] to file in the District Court." (Id.) However, as mentioned earlier, the Court
17
previously determined that the proper venue for the present action is in the District of Colorado,
18
where the putative Defendants would be found and where the claims arose. At the time he filed his
19
motion for reconsideration, the Court notes that Plaintiff was still being housed at the United States
20
Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Therefore, his aforementioned arguments are without merit and
21
are not a basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
22
23
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (docket no. 6) is DENIED.
24
This Order terminates Docket no. 6.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED:
8/14/12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.12\Young1407.denyRECONS.wpd
2
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,
Case Number: CV12-01407 SBA
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS et al,
Defendant.
/
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
11
That on August 14, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
12
13
14
15
17
Timothy Doyle Young Reg. No. 60012-001
U.S. Penitentiary Max-ADX
P.O. Box 8500
3-5128
Florence, CO 81226-8500
18
Dated: August 14, 2012
16
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.12\Young1407.denyRECONS.wpd
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
