Arellano v. Ojeda, 14cv2401-MMA (JLB). (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200108815
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE [Doc. No. 113] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 2, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on qualified immunity, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 105, 106. Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case. See Doc. N
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE [Doc. No. 113] MICHAEL M. ANELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 2, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on qualified immunity, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 105, 106. Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case. See Doc. No..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
[Doc. No. 113]
MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 2, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on qualified immunity, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 105, 106. Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case. See Doc. No. 113. Plaintiff contemporaneously moves for reconsideration and relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Doc. No. 114. The reasons set forth in support of Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case are more properly considered in relation to his pending motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case without prejudice. The Court will consider the arguments raised therein when ruling via separate written order on Plaintiff's request for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
