McLaughlin v. Felker et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley on 6/9/2014 ORDERING that plaintiff's 52 Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) "Newly Discovered Evidence" is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

MARTIN MCLAUGHLIN,
NO. CV-08-831-RHW
Plaintiff,
v.

11

T. FELKER, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

Defendants.

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule

15

60(b)(6) “Newly Discovered Evidence.” ECF No. 52. The motion was heard

16

without oral argument. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-captioned matter,

17

while Misha D. Igra represented Defendants. For the reasons set forth below,

18

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

19
20

BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

21

and closed the file. ECF No. 50 at 4. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege

22

a causal connection between the filing of the grievance and the adverse action to

23

support his retaliation claim. Id. Over the next 24 months, the file remained closed.

24

On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP

25

Rule 60(b)(6) “Newly Discovered Evidence.” ECF No. 52.

26

In his motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the dismissal of the

27

First Amended Complaint based on “newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 1. In

28

addition, Plaintiff alleges that such evidence is “so paramount that it would equal a
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) ~ 1

1

‘miscarriage of justice’ if the Court does not allow it.” Id. Plaintiff also argues that

2

the evidence would “clearly show the causal connection” to sustain his claim of

3

retaliation, which the Court previously ruled had not been adequately pled. Id. at 1,

4

4. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the new evidence was discovered “by chance” on

5

April 25, 2014. Id. at 2.

6

ANALYSIS

7

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff appears to rely on Federal

8

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), pursuant to the caption on the face of the motion.

9

ECF No. 52 at 1. However, the caption and body of Plaintiff’s motion emphasize

10

“newly discovered information,” which is arguably more consistent with Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 60(b)(2). Id. In any event, Plaintiff’s motion fails to provide the Court with

12

the newfound information, a description thereof, or any details regarding his

13

alleged discovery of the new evidence. Id. Under either prong of Rule 60(b),

14

Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated motion is outside of the time limitations period and is,

15

thus, untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

16

A.

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) - Relief Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) provides that a party may be relieved from a final

18

order if the party obtains “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable

19

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

20

Rule 59(b).” Under Rule 60(b)(2), Plaintiff’s motion is subject to the one-year

21

time limitation to bring a motion under this ground. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). To

22

consider the new evidence, the Court must find that the earlier absence of the

23

evidence is excusable under the “newly discovered evidence” standards under Rule

24

60(b)(2), which only applies to “evidence which by due diligence could not have

25

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).”

26

Here, more than 24 months have elapsed since the entry of judgment.

27

Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided any reason for the delay other than the

28

revelation that Plaintiff discovered the information “by chance” on April 25, 2014.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) ~ 2

1

Accordingly, the Court will not grant relief on this ground because the motion is

2

wholly unsubstantiated and untimely. Id.; see also Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d

3

1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal of an untimely Rule 60(b)(2)

4

motion brought more than one year after entry of judgment).

5

B.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) - Relief for Any Other Reason.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because (1) it

7

was not brought within a reasonable amount of time under Rule 60(c)(1); and (2)

8

Plaintiff fails to show the reason that prevented timely action.

9

A court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for “any other

10

reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit has dubbed

11

this Rule as a “catchall provision that allows a court to vacate a judgment for ‘any

12

other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,’” and “‘has been

13

used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.’” Lehman v.

14

United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also

15

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that Rule

16

60(b)(6) should only be used where “extraordinary circumstances prevented a

17

party from taking action”), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Jackson v.

18

Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 658-61 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, a movant must “show both

19

injury and that circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action to protect

20

its interests” to obtain relief. United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984

21

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993).

22

Here, although Plaintiff alleges that he obtained “newly discovered evidence

23

in the form of documentary evidence,” he has not brought forth any evidence or

24

even a basic description of the nature of such evidence. Without more, Plaintiff

25

fails to “show both injury and that circumstances beyond its control prevented

26

timely action to protect its interests,” which is required to obtain relief under Fed.

27

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Moreover, nothing in the motion suggests “extraordinary

28

circumstances” that prevented Plaintiff from taking timely action. Although
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) ~ 3

1

Plaintiff alleges that the newly discovered information is “so paramount that it

2

would equal a ‘miscarriage of justice’ if the Court does not allow it,” with only

3

bare assertions and without any factual basis, the Court is not in a position to

4

consider the “newly discovered” evidence or the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s delay

5

in filing the motion.

6
7

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to reconsider the dismissal of the

8

First Amended Complaint given the untimeliness of the motion under either Rule

9

60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6), as well as the failure to disclose the “newly discovered

10

evidence” and the circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from taking timely action.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

12

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule 60(b)(6)

13
14
15
16

“Newly Discovered Evidence,” ECF No. 52, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to
file this Order and provide copies to counsel and Plaintiff.
DATED this 9th day of June, 2014.

17
18
19
20

s/Robert H. Whaley
ROBERT H. WHALEY
United States District Judge

21
22

Q:\RHW\aCalifornia cases\CAED cases\McLaughlin\Order Reconsideration.docx

23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) ~ 4