Jones v. Mailroom Officials, et al.
ORDER DENYING 44 , 45 Plaintiff's Motions for Relief From a Final Judgment or Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/14/2021. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GARLAND A. JONES,
MAILROOM OFFICIALS, et al.,
No. 1:17-cv-00281-NONE-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 44, 45)
Plaintiff Garland A. Jones is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this closed civil rights
action. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 31, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and
recommendations on November 29, 2018. (Doc. No. 23.) On January 9, 2019, the court adopted
the findings and recommendations and dismissed this action for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
No. 24.) Plaintiff appealed this court’s order of dismissal. (Doc. No. 26.) On September 15,
2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 41.)
On November 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from a final judgment or order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. No. 44.) Plaintiff concurrently filed a
document he titled “Motion for Writ of Mandate – Relief from Judgment.” (Doc. No. 45.) The
court construes it as a second motion for relief from a final judgment or order. (Compare id. with
Doc. No. 44.)
Pursuant to Rule 60, the court may relieve a party from a final judgement or order “for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; . . . or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 230(j), a
party seeking reconsideration of an order on a motion must show “what new or different facts or
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,
or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
Plaintiff does not provide justification for relief based on any of the above-enumerated
grounds. Plaintiff’s motions, like his complaints (see, e.g., Doc. No. 20) and his objections to the
October 31, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 23), consist primarily of disjointed,
generalized conclusions and are devoid of specific factual contentions. More to the point,
plaintiff does not provide any new facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not considered
by the court upon its adoption of the findings and recommendations. The Ninth Circuit has also
considered plaintiff’s pleadings and affirmed this court’s conclusion that plaintiff “failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.” (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) Plaintiff provides no justifiable
reason to reconsider this conclusion.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for relief from a final judgment or order (Doc. Nos. 44,
45) are denied. The court will not entertain any further filings in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 14, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?