United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59
ROBERT H. WHALEY, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule 59(b) and 59(e) "Newly Discovered Evidence." ECF No. 55. The motion was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-captioned matter, while Kelly A. Samson represents Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
On April 19, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection between the filing of the grievance and the adverse action to support his retaliation claim. See ECF No. 50 at 4. On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) "Newly Discovered Evidence, " wherein he moved the Court to reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint based on "newly discovered evidence." ECF No. 52 at 1. Plaintiff argued that the new evidence would "clearly show the causal connection" to sustain his claim of retaliation, yet Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any new information. Id . at 1, 4. Thus, the Court declined to reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint given the untimeliness of the motion under either Rule 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6), as well as Plaintiff's failure to disclose the "newly discovered evidence" and the circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from taking timely action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1).
On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP 59(b) and 59(e) "Newly Discovered Evidence" (the "Motion"). ECF No. 55. Defendants have responded in opposition. ECF No. 56.
For a second time, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. Id .; see also ECF No. 50. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff attaches three exhibits: (1) a declaration of Corcoran State Prison inmate, DeAndre Dion Doyle, dated May 22, 2009; (2) an appeal memorandum from Chief Deputy Warden M. McDonald to Mr. Doyle, dated June 29, 2006; and (3) a declaration of Corcoran State Prison inmate, Tommy R. Brown, dated May 5, 2004. ECF No. 55 at 3-8.
The exhibits appear to demonstrate that inmates, Brown and Doyle, were implicated in the same Conspiracy to Murder Peace Officer charge, dated April 4, 2005, that involved Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff argues that these documents show the necessary causal connection to sustain his claim of retaliation. Id. However, and pursuant to the memorandum from Chief Deputy Warden M. McDonald to Mr. Doyle, dated June 29, 2006, the Conspiracy charge against Mr. Doyle was dismissed because it violated a California Department of Corrections ("CDC") policy, which prohibits "stacking" CDC Form 115 Rules Violation Reports, not because of a retaliatory motive. Id. at 7. Accordingly, the Court finds that these documents do not support a claim for retaliation against Plaintiff. ECF No. 55 at 3-8.
Plaintiff relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(b) and 59(e), pursuant to the caption on the face of the motion. ECF No. 55. However and similar to Plaintiff's prior reconsideration motion, Plaintiff's Motion emphasizes "newly discovered information, " which is arguably more consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6). Id. Nevertheless, although Plaintiff provides the Court with alleged newfound evidence, under either Rule 60(b)(2), Rule 60(b)(6), Rule 59(b), or Rule 59(e), Plaintiff's Motion is untimely and lacks merit to reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1); ECF No. 55.
A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) - Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) provides that a "motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) provides that a "motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff may not seek relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b) or 59(e), given that more than two years have elapsed since the entry of judgment.
B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) - Relief Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence
Although Plaintiff's Motion does not explicitly seek relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2), he bases his Motion upon "newly discovered evidence." See ECF No. 56. Accordingly, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) provides that a party may be relieved from a final order if the party obtains "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." However, under Rule 60(b)(2), Plaintiff's Motion is subject to the one-year time limitation to bring a motion under this ground. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to procure the evidence because he is a prisoner and is prohibited from communicating with prisoners incarcerated at other prisons, transmitting mail to other prisoners, and reviewing third party prisoner case files. ECF No. 55 at 2. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the newly discovered evidence would impact the prior judgment, and that the Motion is untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1); see also Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that "newly discovered evidence must be of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the ...