(PC) Pollard v. Anderson Police Dept

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 20212:09-cv-01955California381 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Kenneth Buford Pollard, III, No. 2:09-cv-1955-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, ORDER v. Anderson Police Dept., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Mr. Pollard filed a complaint in this court July 16, 2009. On March 1, 2021, he moved to 18 reopen this case, which the Clerk’s Office closed after the court warned plaintiff that failure to 19 file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of his case for lack of prosecution and failure 20 to comply with court rules and orders. See Order (Aug. 13, 2010), ECF No. 67; E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. The motion is denied. A motion to reopen a § 1983 case that has been closed by way of dispositive motion is 23 effectively a motion based on Rule 60(b)(6) asking the court to grant relief from a final judgment. 24 See Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). This relief will be denied unless a party demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances which prevented or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.