United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF
No. 23)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Hector Clarence Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
On
February 7, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued
findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this
action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff timely
filed objections on February 19, 2019, (ECF No. 9), and the
undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations on
February 20, 2019, (ECF No. 10). Judgment was entered
accordingly the same date. (ECF No. 11.)
On
March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of
time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 12.) As Plaintiff
did not provide a reason for the requested extension of time,
the motion was denied. (ECF No. 13.)
On
April 8, 2019, Plaintiff nevertheless filed a notice of
appeal as to the Court's February 20, 2019 dismissal
order and judgment. (ECF No. 14.) That appeal was dismissed
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on April 23, 2019, for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17.)
Thereafter,
on May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the time
to file an appeal of the Court's April 4, 2019 order,
together with a second notice of appeal with respect to the
Court's final judgment entered February 20, 2019. (ECF
Nos. 18, 19.) Again, as Plaintiff did not provide a reason
for his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal, the
motion was denied. (ECF No. 22.) Similarly, the Ninth Circuit
dismissed his second appeal for lack of jurisdiction on June
26, 2019. (ECF No. 21.)
On July
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment
or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF
No. 23.) As Plaintiff had also filed motions to reconsider in
the two closed appeals, the Court deferred ruling on the
motion. See Anderson v. Silva, Case No. 19-15696,
Doc. 5, filed May 8, 2019; Anderson v. Silva, Case
No. 19-16075, Doc. 9, filed July 8, 2019. Both motions for
reconsideration were denied by the Ninth Circuit, (ECF Nos.
24, 25), and therefore Plaintiff's motion for relief from
judgment or order is currently before the Court.
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of
final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a
district court to relieve a party from a final order or
judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment
is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A motion under Rule
60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event
“not more than one year after the judgment, order, or
proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.
Moreover,
when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j)
requires a party to show the “new or different facts or
circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist
for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are committed to
the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin
Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987);
Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)
(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of
a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water
Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.
Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on
other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff's
motion again fails to set forth any grounds for relief from
the Court's final judgment, aside from his attempts to
file appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Although the filing is
more than fifty pages in length, all but two pages are merely
attached exhibits of filings submitted to or orders received
from the Ninth Circuit, and Plaintiff provides no explanation
as to their relevance or significance to his motion.
Ultimately, this action was dismissed due to Plaintiff's
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendations, and those
objections were fully considered in the Court's order
adopting the findings and recommendations. The instant motion
provides no information regarding what new or different
facts, circumstances, or law he might present that were not
already raised in his objections, and thus no basis for
overturning the Court's judgment.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment,
(ECF No. 23), is ...