Mally

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN HENRY LEE, Case No. 18-cv-02109-JSW

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

9 v. EQUITABLE TOLLING

10 DANNY MALLY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff was a California prisoner proceeding pro se when he filed this civil rights action.1 13 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on untimeliness grounds was granted on September 14 16, 2019. Over four years later, on January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion “for equitable 15 tolling,” in which he requests reconsideration of the judgment under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(d)(2) 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants have opposed the motion. 17 Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for several reasons. First, a motion for 18 relief under Rule 60(b)(1) must be made no later than one year after the judgment was entered. 19 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff’s motion was made over four years after judgment, and 20 therefore was made over three…