Hill v. Katavich et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for relief from final judgment and Motions for miscellaneous relief 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/2021. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00631-LJO-JLT (PC)

TONY HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATAVICH, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL
JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS FOR
MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 37-40)

16
17

Plaintiff Tony Hill is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this closed civil rights action.

18

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On July 6, 2015, the court adopted findings and recommendations issued by the assigned

21

magistrate judge (Doc. No. 3), denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

22

ordering him to pay the filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 10.) On September 28, 2015, the court

23

dismissed this action for plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff appealed

24

the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 20.) On March 1, 2016, the Ninth

25

Circuit dismissed that appeal. (Doc. No. 27.)

26

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal on October 13, 2015.

27

(Doc. No. 23.) The court denied the motion on November 18, 2015. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff

28

filed a second motion for reconsideration on October 16, 2017. (Doc. No. 29.) The court denied

1

the second motion on October 17, 2017. (Doc. No. 30.) In the latter denial, the court explicitly

2

stated that “[f]urther motions for reconsideration on the dismissal and judgment against [p]laintiff

3

in this action will not be entertained and will be stricken upon filing.” (Id. at 4.) Nevertheless,

4

plaintiff filed a third motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 32.) The court

5

ordered the motion stricken from the record on October 30, 2017. (Doc. No. 33.) In its order, the

6

court noted that “[p]laintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new

7

action if he believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action.” (Id. at

8

2.)

9

On March 25 and April 10, 2020, plaintiff filed his fourth and fifth motions for

10

reconsideration to reopen this closed case. (Doc. Nos. 3738.) Therein, plaintiff urges the court to

11

re-open this case on the ground that he can now point to “directly related facts/evidence of

12

conspiracy. Cruel and unusual punishment, physical provocation, and retaliation” in response to

13

his filing of this case. (Doc. No. 37.) In support of this request, plaintiff has filed an affidavit

14

indicating that correctional officers at California Correctional Institution and California State

15

Prison, Corcoran, have assaulted him, had him assaulted, or attempted to provoke him into

16

committing an assault. (Doc. No. 37 at 34; Doc. No. 38 at 12.)
As an initial matter, plaintiff’s motions for relief from the final judgment in this case are

17
18

untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1). Second, the court has explicitly ordered

19

that all further motions for reconsideration in this case will be stricken from the record, and that

20

“no further relief is available for [p]laintiff via this action.” (Doc. No. 33 at 2.) Third, even if the

21

court entertained plaintiff’s motions, they would be denied on the merits because the new

22

allegations in plaintiff’s motions are not directly related to the claims raised in his original

23

complaint filed back in 2015. (See id.)

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration to reopen this case (Doc. Nos. 3738)

2

are STRICKEN from the record. Plaintiff’s motions for miscellaneous relief (Doc. Nos. 3940)

3

are DENIED as moot. The court again informs plaintiff that no further filings will be entertained

4

in this closed case. Of course, as the court has previously indicated, plaintiff is not precluded

5

from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he believes his civil rights are being

6

violated.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3