Anderson v. Benedict

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/8/14 DENYING 73 Motion for Relief from Judgment. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYON ANDERSON,

12

No.

CIV. S-10-2833 LKK/GGH PS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

MCM CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Bryon Anderson is proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis with this civil action brought under Title VII of the

19

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

20

filed March 25, 2014, this court adopted in full findings and

21

recommendations filed by the magistrate judge on December 3, 2013

22

and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant MCM

23

Construction, Inc.

24

same day.

25

document styled “Response to Court’s Decision.”

26

construes this document as a motion for relief from judgment

27

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

28

////

(ECF No. 71)

(ECF No. 72)

By order

Judgment was entered on the

On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a

1

The court

1

Rule 60(b) provides:

2

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment,
Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:

3
4
5
6

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;

7
(2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

8
9
10

12

(3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic
or
extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;

13

(4) the judgment is void;

11

14

(5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable;
or

15
16
17
18

(6) any
relief.

19

other

reason

that

justifies

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

21

evidence and he has made no arguments that bring the motion

22

within the ambit of the first five paragraphs of Rule 60(b).

23

Nor has he met the rigorous standards for relief under Rule

24

60(b)(6).

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s motion is unsupported by

Judgments are not often set aside under Rule
60(b)(6).
Rather,
the
Rule
is
“‘used
sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
manifest injustice’ and ‘is to be utilized
only
where
extraordinary
circumstances
prevented a party from taking timely action
2

1

to
prevent
or
correct
an
erroneous
judgment.’” United States v. Washington, 394
F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,
984
F.2d
1047,
1049
(9th
Cir.1993)).
Accordingly, a party who moves for such
relief “must demonstrate both injury and
circumstances
beyond
his
control
that
prevented him from proceeding with ... the
action in a proper fashion.” Community Dental
Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th
Cir.2002).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th

10

Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff’s motion, unsupported by any evidence,

11

does not meet the showing required for relief under Rule

12

60(b)(6).

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 7,

14

2014 “Response to Court’s Decision” (ECF No. 73) is construed as

15

a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

60(b) and, so construed, is denied.

17

DATED:

July 8, 2014.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3