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.

Howard v. Williamson

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 1, 2019

GREGORY HOWARD, Plaintiff,
v.
S. WILLIAMSON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Gregory Howard's (“Plaintiff”) third Motion for Reconsideration, titled “Amended Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, ” in which Plaintiff once again seeks reconsideration of the Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants S. Williamson, M. Bookout, and E. Moltens (collectively “Defendants”) (ECF No. 43). (ECF No. 55). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff initiated this action on June 2, 2016, and the action proceeded on Plaintiff's claim that Defendants used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) On March 7, 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment while making several arguments, including the argument that Plaintiff's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 19.) On November 7, 2017, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred and recommended dismissal. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff requested - and was granted - three extensions of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations, but he never submitted any objections. (See ECF Nos. 37-42.) On March 30, 2018, this Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full, granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and closing the case. (ECF Nos. 43-44.)

         On August 29, 2018, approximately five months after Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement was granted and the case was closed, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 45.) On October 23, 2018, the Court found Plaintiff's motion was untimely and Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any highly unusual circumstances justifying reversal, and therefore denied the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e).[1] (ECF No. 46.)

         On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a petition to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 47.) The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff's request because the request was untimely under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (ECF No. 48 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)).)

         On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second Motion for Reconsideration, this time citing “newly discovered evidence.” (ECF No. 49.) However, the Court found Plaintiff's exhibits and arguments failed to establish any new evidence or information that would change the outcome of the case. (ECF No. 51 at 2.) Moreover, the Court found Plaintiff's motion was untimely. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion.[2] (ECF No. 51.)

         On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third Motion for Reconsideration, titled “Motion for Relief from Final Judgement [] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B).” (ECF No. 52.) Defendants opposed that motion on the basis that it was untimely, it failed to satisfy any grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any diligence in pursuing this action. (ECF No. 53.) In response, Plaintiff filed a 51-page “Amended” motion on August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 55.) The Court addresses and DENIES Plaintiff's amended motion for the reasons stated herein.

         II. Standard of Law

         Under Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve Plaintiff from final judgment for any of the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct ...

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.