Washington v. Adams et al

Filing 86

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal of His Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Be Granted and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Be Denied 66 , 67 , and 80 TWENTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/5/12: Matter referred to Judge Ishii. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

CHRISTOPHER N. WASHINGTON,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01666-AWI-SKO PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL OF HIS
CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE GRANTED AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT BE DENIED

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS,

12

Defendant.

13

(Docs. 66, 67, and 80)

14

TWENTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
/

15
16
17

Findings and Recommendations Addressing Plaintiff’s Pending Motions
I.

Motion to Set Aside Order Dismissing Claims for Equitable Relief

18

A.

19

Plaintiff Christopher N. Washington, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 21, 2009. This

21

action was proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on March 24, 2011, against

22

Defendant Adams on Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from Defendant’s alleged violation of

23

Plaintiff’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States

24

Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On March 27, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part

25

Defendant’s motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the

26

ground of qualified immunity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Procedural History

27

Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions seeking relief from the screening order

28

dismissing his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Pursuant to the
1

1

Court’s order filed on March 27, 2012, Defendant timely filed a statement of non-opposition on

2

April 27, 2012, and Defendant filed an answer on May 18, 2012, following which the discovery and

3

scheduling order was issued. (Docs. 74, 79, 83, 84.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply and his motions

4

have been submitted upon the record. Local Rule 230(l).

5

B.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order

7

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

8

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist.

9

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The

10

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id. (quotation

11

marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show

12

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

13

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or

14

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

Legal Standard

15

C.

16

At the time Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was screened on May 27, 2011, Plaintiff

17

was no longer incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran and his claims for declaratory and

18

injunctive relief were dismissed. (Doc. 21.) However, Plaintiff was subsequently transferred back

19

to CSP-Corcoran and he seeks reinstatement of his claims, a request which is unopposed by

20

Defendant. (Docs. 59, 66, 67, 79.) Based on this change in circumstance, Plaintiff’s claims for

21

equitable relief are no longer moot and relief from the screening order is justified. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

60(b)(6). Therefore, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s motions be granted and this action proceed

23

on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

24

II.

Discussion

Motion for Default Judgment

25

The Court further recommends that Plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment, filed on

26

April 30, 2012, be denied. Plaintiff’s previous motion for default judgment, filed on April 4, 2012,

27

was denied on April 24, 2012. It appears Plaintiff filed his second motion before receiving the ruling

28

on his first motion, but the grounds for denial are the same: Defendant Adams is not in default, Fed.
2

1

R. Civ. P. 55, nor has he engaged in conduct which would subject him to terminating sanctions under

2

the Court’s inherent power, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991);

3

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767, 100 S.Ct. 2455 (1980); Gomez v. Vernon, 255

4

F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001).

5

III.

Recommendation

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

7

1.

8

Plaintiff’s motions to set aside the dismissal of his claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief, filed on February 6, 2012, be GRANTED;

9

2.

This action proceed on Plaintiff’s declaratory and injunctive relief claims arising

10

from the alleged violation of his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First

11

Amendment of the United States Constitution; and

12

3.

Plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment, filed on April 30, 2012, be DENIED.

13

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

14

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

15

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

16

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

17

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

18

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

19

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ie14hj

June 5, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3