Jones v. California Supreme Court

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/28/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 11 Motion for relief, to vacate, set aside judgment is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FREDERICK JONES, Sr.,
Plaintiff,

11

No. 2:11-cv-3048 LKK GGH P

vs.

12
13
14

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
Clerks and Administrators, et al.,
Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was closed on July 20, 2012, but plaintiff has filed a

19

motion for relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

20

Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case

21

in limited circumstances, “including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez

22

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant

23

part:

24
25
26

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
1

1
2
3
4
5

new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct of
an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon
which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no
longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a
reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one
year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

6
“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
7
Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Allmerica Financial
8
Life Insurance and Annunity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997).
9
In the instant motion plaintiff has not presented any new arguments or facts. The
10
motion is meritless and frivolous and is denied.
11
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion
12
(Doc. 11) is denied.
13
DATED: August 28, 2012.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2