McLaughlin v. Felker et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley on 8/18/14 DENYING 55 Motion for Reconsideration. The District Court Executive is hereby DIRECTED to file this Order and provide copies to counsel and Plaintiff. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

MARTIN MCLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,

NO. CV-08-831-RHW

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59

11
12

T. FELKER, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

59(b) and 59(e) “Newly Discovered Evidence.” ECF No. 55. The motion was

17

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

18

matter, while Kelly A. Samson represents Defendants. For the reasons set forth

19

below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

20
21

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

22

because Plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection between the filing of the

23

grievance and the adverse action to support his retaliation claim. See ECF No. 50

24

at 4. On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP

25

Rule 60(b)(6) “Newly Discovered Evidence,” wherein he moved the Court to

26

reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint based on “newly

27

discovered evidence.” ECF No. 52 at 1. Plaintiff argued that the new evidence

28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59 * 1
C:\Users\jdonati\AppData\Local\Temp\notes256C9A\Order Recons2.docx

1

would “clearly show the causal connection” to sustain his claim of retaliation, yet

2

Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any new information. Id. at 1, 4. Thus, the

3

Court declined to reconsider the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint given

4

the untimeliness of the motion under either Rule 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6), as well as

5

Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the “newly discovered evidence” and the

6

circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from taking timely action. See Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 60(c)(1).

8
9
10
11

On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration
Under FRCP 59(b) and 59(e) “Newly Discovered Evidence” (the “Motion”). ECF
No. 55. Defendants have responded in opposition. ECF No. 56.
For a second time, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal

12

of the First Amended Complaint. Id.; see also ECF No. 50. In support of his

13

Motion, Plaintiff attaches three exhibits: (1) a declaration of Corcoran State Prison

14

inmate, DeAndré Dion Doyle, dated May 22, 2009; (2) an appeal memorandum

15

from Chief Deputy Warden M. McDonald to Mr. Doyle, dated June 29, 2006; and

16

(3) a declaration of Corcoran State Prison inmate, Tommy R. Brown, dated May 5,

17

2004. ECF No. 55 at 3-8.

18

The exhibits appear to demonstrate that inmates, Brown and Doyle, were

19

implicated in the same Conspiracy to Murder Peace Officer charge, dated April 4,

20

2005, that involved Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff argues that these documents show the

21

necessary causal connection to sustain his claim of retaliation. Id. However, and

22

pursuant to the memorandum from Chief Deputy Warden M. McDonald to Mr.

23

Doyle, dated June 29, 2006, the Conspiracy charge against Mr. Doyle was

24

dismissed because it violated a California Department of Corrections (“CDC”)

25

policy, which prohibits “stacking” CDC Form 115 Rules Violation Reports, not

26

because of a retaliatory motive. Id. at 7. Accordingly, the Court finds that these

27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59 * 2
C:\Users\jdonati\AppData\Local\Temp\notes256C9A\Order Recons2.docx

1

documents do not support a claim for retaliation against Plaintiff. ECF No. 55 at 3-

2

8.

3

ANALYSIS

4

Plaintiff relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(b) and 59(e), pursuant

5

to the caption on the face of the motion. ECF No. 55. However and similar to

6

Plaintiff’s prior reconsideration motion, Plaintiff’s Motion emphasizes “newly

7

discovered information,” which is arguably more consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.

8

60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6). Id. Nevertheless, although Plaintiff provides the Court with

9

alleged newfound evidence, under either Rule 60(b)(2), Rule 60(b)(6), Rule 59(b),

10

or Rule 59(e), Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely and lacks merit to reconsider the

11

dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); ECF No.

12

55.

13

A.

14
15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) – Altering or Amending a
Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) provides that a “motion for a new trial must be filed no

16

later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

17

provides that a “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28

18

days after the entry of the judgment.” In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff may

19

not seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) or 59(e), given that more than two years

20

have elapsed since the entry of judgment.

21

B.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) - Relief Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence
Although Plaintiff’s Motion does not explicitly seek relief under Fed. R.

23

Civ. P. 60(b)(2), he bases his Motion upon “newly discovered evidence.” See ECF

24

No. 56. Accordingly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) provides that a party may be relieved

25

from a final order if the party obtains “newly discovered evidence that, with

26

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

27

trial under Rule 59(b).” However, under Rule 60(b)(2), Plaintiff’s Motion is

28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59 * 3
C:\Users\jdonati\AppData\Local\Temp\notes256C9A\Order Recons2.docx

1

subject to the one-year time limitation to bring a motion under this ground. Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to procure the evidence because he

3
4

is a prisoner and is prohibited from communicating with prisoners incarcerated at

5

other prisons, transmitting mail to other prisoners, and reviewing third party

6

prisoner case files. ECF No. 55 at 2. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not

7

demonstrated that the newly discovered evidence would impact the prior judgment,

8

and that the Motion is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); see also Coastal

9

Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987)

10

(stating that “newly discovered evidence must be of such magnitude that

11

production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the

12

case”); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming

13

dismissal of an untimely Rule 60(b)(2) motion brought more than one year after

14

entry of judgment).

15

C.

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) - Relief for Any Other Reason
Similarly, Plaintiff’s Motion does not pass muster under Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

60(b)(6). It is long-held that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or

18

order for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This Rule

19

is a “catchall provision that allows a court to vacate a judgment for ‘any other

20

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

21

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

22

States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). A movant must

23

“show both injury and that circumstances beyond its control prevented timely

24

action to protect its interests” to obtain relief. United States v. Alpine Land &

25

Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).

26
27

Here, Plaintiff argues that the newly disclosed evidence bridges the causal
connection to support his claim for retaliation. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff also describes

28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59 * 4
C:\Users\jdonati\AppData\Local\Temp\notes256C9A\Order Recons2.docx

1

why circumstances were beyond his control to prevent timely action. Id. However,

2

the Court finds that the documents do not support Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation,

3

which is required in order to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Although Plaintiff

4

alleges that the preclusion of the new evidence would “equal a miscarriage of

5

justice and a manifest error of law,” the Court disagrees.

6

CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion given the

8

untimeliness under either Rule 59(b), 59(e), 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6), and the lack of

9

evidence to support a reconsideration of the First Amended Complaint dismissal.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Under FRCP Rule 59(b) and 59(e)

12
13
14
15

“Newly Discovered Evidence,” ECF No. 55, 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 18th day of August, 2014.

16
17
18
19

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59 * 5
C:\Users\jdonati\AppData\Local\Temp\notes256C9A\Order Recons2.docx