Lynch v. Doe, et al

Filing 87

ORDER TREATING the 78 Magistrate Judge's September 26, 2019, ORDER as Findings and Recommendations and ADOPTING those Findings and Recommendations 75 and 76 , ; ORDER DENYING 79 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/10/2020. (CASE REMAINS CLOSED) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ANTHONEY LYNCH,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN OR JANE DOE, et al.,

10

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-JDP
ORDER TREATING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2019, ORDER AS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ADOPTING THOSE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Anthoney Lynch is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 26, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying motions to vacate
and appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 78.) Because that order was entered post-judgment, the Court of
Appeals remanded with instructions that the district judge may treat the order as findings and
recommendations. (Doc. No. 84.) Additionally, after remand from the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying vacation of the
judgment and appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 79). The Court will follow the Ninth Circuit’s
suggestion and treat the Magistrate Judge’s September 2019 order as a findings and
recommendation.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s October 2019 motion for
reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and
recommendations (Doc. No. 78) to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. There is
no basis for Rule 60(b) relief or reconsideration of prior orders. Plaintiff has failed to

28
1

1

demonstrate either that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), or that his motion was timely

2

under Rule 60((c)(1). See Lopez v. Ryan, 678 F.3d 1131, 1135-38 (9th Cir. 2012); Lal v.

3

California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, the Court agrees that there is an

4

insufficient basis for appointing/seeking voluntary assistance of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiffs’

5

motions will be denied.

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The September 26, 2019, order, (Doc. No. 78) is converted to findings and

9

recommendation;

10

2. The findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 78) is ADOPTED;

11

3. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and re-enter judgment (Doc. No. 75) and motion to

12

appoint counsel (Doc. No. 76) are DENIED;

13

4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED;

14

5. The Court will not accept any further motions for reconsideration relating to this order

15
16

or Document Nos. 75 and 76; and
6. This case remains CLOSED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2