Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carpenter v. Rivera

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 30, 2014

RON CARPENTER, Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL RIVERA, ROBERT JOHNSON, MICHAEL MULVEY, GARY QUITADAMO, JOHN DOES 1-5, GARY GEMME, MICHAEL V. O'BRIEN, and THE CITY OF WORCESTER, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, District Judge.

Background

Ron Carpenter ("Carpenter" or "Plaintiff") filed a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Worcester Policer Officers Samuel Rivera, Robert Johnson, Michael Mulvey, Sergant Gary Quitadamo, Chief of Police Gary Gemme, City Manager Michael O'Brien and the City of Worcester ("City")(collectively, "Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Carpenter also filed Massachusetts state law claims against the individual officers for violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act ("MCRA"), Mass.Gen.L. ch. 12, §§11 I and tort law claims for assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.

On August 29, 2013, the Court allowed Defendants' motion for summary judgmnent; judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. See Memorandum Of Decision And Order On Defts' Mot. For Sum. J. (Docket No. 35) And Related Motions (Docket Nos. 53 &65) (Docket No. 67)("Order"); Judgment (Docket No. 68). On September 26, 2013, Carpenter filed Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration And For Relief From [68-9]Judgment Or To Alter Or Amend Judgment[Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (B) (1), 59 (E)] (Docket No. 72)("Plaintiff's Motion"). In their opposition, Defendants' asserted that the motion must be denied as untimely. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Late Filing Of [72] His Motion For Reconsideration [Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(1)(B)] (Docket No. 75).

This Order addresses Plaintiff's Motion and his motion for extension of the time for filing that motion. For the following reasons, both motions are denied.

Discussion

In considering the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, I accepted Defendants' material statement of facts as true after striking the Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' statement of material facts and his own statement of additional material facts on the grounds that he never filed the exhibits he cited as evidence to support the disputed facts and/or factual assertions made therein. Order., at pp. 4-6; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and this Court's L.R., D.Mass. 56.1.[1] Plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or, in the alternative, for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) in which he requests that the Court: vacate the judgment that was entered in favor of the Defendants, allow him to file his exhibits late, and reconsider the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) and Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File

Rule 59(e) provides that "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)(emphasis added). Before addressing the merits of Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion, the Court must first address Defendants' argument that the motion must be denied as untimely, because it was filed 29 days after the entry of judgment.

Judgment in this case was entered on August 29, 2013. Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration on September 26, 2013, at 6:06 p.m. Under this Court's Local Rules, all electronic transmissions of documents must be completed prior to 6:00 p.m. to be considered timely filed that day. See L.R., D.Mass. 5.4. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is deemed filed on September 27, 2013. In his motion to extend time, Plaintiff acknowledges that the motion was filed after the 6:00 p.m. deadline, but notes that it was only six minutes late and was the result of his initial filing having been rejected by the system.

Plaintiff's motion was filed on the 29th day following the entry of judgment. Therefore, the motion is untimely. Furthermore, the Court is without power to extend the deadline beyond the time provided in the rule. See Grandoit v. Robinson, C.A. No. 11-11404-JLT, 2013 WL 6488506 (D.Mass. Dec. 5, 2013)(given plain meaning of Rule 6(b)(2), court lacks discretion to extend the twenty-eight day deadline for filing a motion under Rule 59(e)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to extend the time for filing his Rule 59(b) motion is denied, and his Rule 59(e) motion is denied as untimely.[2]

Plaintiff's Motion For Relief From Judgment Pursuant To Rule 60(b)

A motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)(mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect), must be filed within a reasonable time after entry of judgment, but not later than one year. I do not find that filing the motion 29 days after entry of judgment was unreasonable and for that reason, I find that as to his request for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the Plaintiff's motion was timely. Therefore, I will focus the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.