The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS
This civil rights action was closed on February 25, 2010 when this court entered judgment. On April 29, 2011, plaintiff moved for relief from the judgment (Doc. No. 197) and for augmentation of the record (Doc. No. 199).*fn1 On October 13, 2011, plaintiff moved for an evidentiary hearing and for an investigator. (Doc. No. 212) After carefully considering the record, the undersigned recommends that the motions be denied.
This is a civil rights action, filed pro se by a California state prisoner, who alleged that he was deprived of all physical exercise, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, during four lockdown periods, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., Doc. No. 103, p. 2.
On March 30, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding, among other things, that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they failed to establish that the emergencies which justified the initial decisions to lockdown the prisons continued to exist for the entire lockdown periods. See Doc. No. 103, p. 43 ("While it is clear that investigations had to be conducted, the record contains no specific evidence regarding how and when it was determined that it was safe to release African American inmates to the exercise yards.")
On October 31, 2007, the matter proceeded to a jury trial before District Judge Garland E. Burrell, with plaintiff appearing pro se. On November 1, 2007, plaintiff examined, among other witnesses, defendant Cheryl Pliler. See ECF No. 146. On November 1, 2007, plaintiff moved to dismiss two defendants, including defendant Pliler. At that point, Judge Burrell appointed counsel for plaintiff, finding that exceptional circumstances existed to do so because
Plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits and was likely to have a difficult time understanding the nuances of the deliberate indifference standard applicable to his claims and articulating the evidence supporting the elements of that doctrine without the assistance of counsel.
See Doc. No. 155, p. 2 at 7-10.
On November 8, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding him nominal and punitive damages. See Doc. No. 152. Defendants appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Doc. No. 185.
On July 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict, finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Doc. No. 190, 191 (Amended Opinion filed January 8, 2010; Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010)). Consistent with the Court of Appeal's direction, this court entered judgment in favor of defendants on February 25, 2010. See Doc. No. 195.
On February 22, 2011, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. See Doc. No. 197, p. 1.
On April 29, 2011, plaintiff moved for relief from the judgment (Doc. No. 197) and also moved to augment the record (Doc. No. 199). On October 13, 2011, plaintiff moved for an evidentiary hearing and an investigator (Doc. No. 212).
Motion for Relief from Judgment
Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from the judgment entered by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 7, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is appropriate as the United States Supreme Court ...