Opinion
No. CV 1-05-0699-RCC.
April 22, 2011
ORDER
The Court dismissed Plaintiff's case, because he missed a mandatory deadline for filing an amended complaint. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff filed Motions for Reconsideration, arguing that he had timely filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the Court never received. (Docs. 43 44). The Court denied relief, because (i) Plaintiff's filing deadline remained in place until the Court granted the Motion for Extension of Time, and (ii) Plaintiff provided no proof as to when or how he mailed the Motion. (Doc. 46).
Plaintiff now argues that the Court denied him relief because he did not file proof of service of the Motion for Extension of Time, and that this constitutes clear error because he was not required to serve the Motion. (Doc. 47). This is clearly an erroneous reading of the Order, and the Court sees no reason to grant Plaintiff relief at this point. See Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2004); Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 47).
DATED this 19th day of April, 2011.