Zepeda v. Cate, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion for Relief From Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/29/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAIME L. ZEPEDA,

12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT

v.
(ECF No. 20)

14
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2015, the Magistrate

20

Judge assigned to the case screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 13),

21

found that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Reed and

22

Bryant but no other claims, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended pleading or notify the

23

Court of his willingness to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable. (ECF

24

No. 15.) Thereafter, on August 28, 2015, the action was dismissed for failure to obey a

25

court order and failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s

26

May 11, 2015 order. (ECF No. 18.)

27

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 28, 2015 motion for relief from judgment.

28

(ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff states that he was unable to respond to the Court’s orders due to

1

CDCR 115 disciplinary proceedings, his placement in segregated housing, problems

2

with his job, seizure of his legal materials, and extensive and unrelated administrative

3

grievance proceedings. He states that he submitted a motion for extension of time to the

4

Court, but the docket shows no such motion being filed. Plaintiff expresses his

5

willingness to proceed only on those claims previously found to be cognizable.

6

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

7

from a final judgment or order for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Rule 60(b)(6) “is

8

to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be

9

utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737,

10

749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party

11

bears the burden of demonstrating that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate. Cassidy v.

12

Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).

13

Plaintiff’s motion reflects that Plaintiff was aware of the Court’s orders and the

14

need to respond, but failed to do so in a timely manner. Although Plaintiff undoubtedly

15

had other competing priorities during the relevant time period, these do not excuse his

16

failure to respond to Court orders and failure to prosecute this action. Among other

17

things, Plaintiff claims to have been placed in administrative segregation, but provides

18

no evidence to suggest his placement there substantially overlapped with relevant

19

deadlines in this case. Plaintiff has failed to present extraordinary circumstances

20

justifying relief.

21

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is HEREBY DENIED.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 29, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2