UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 14, 2011
JESSE STEPHEN KING,
DARREL ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT (ECF No. 49)
Plaintiff Jesse Stephen King ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 16, 2001. On November 15, 2001, this action was dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 28.) On December 6, 2001, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 33.) The appeal was dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee on May 3, 2003. On July 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment because prison officials obstructed his attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 49.)
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . .from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). "A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time" and when relief is requested under the first three grounds for relief "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment. . . ." Fed R. Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff's motion, brought more than eight years after the entry of judgment is untimely. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th 1984).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment is HEREBY DENIED as untimely. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.