Howard v. Williamson et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/1/2019 DENYING 55 (Amended) Third Motion for Reconsideration. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY HOWARD,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-01200-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

S. WILLIAMSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Gregory Howard’s (“Plaintiff”) third

18

Motion for Reconsideration, titled “Amended Motion for Relief from Final Judgment,” in which

19

Plaintiff once again seeks reconsideration of the Order granting the Motion for Summary

20

Judgment filed by Defendants S. Williamson, M. Bookout, and E. Moltens (collectively

21

“Defendants”) (ECF No. 43). (ECF No. 55). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion

22

is DENIED.

23

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 2, 2016, and the action proceeded on Plaintiff’s claim

25

that Defendants used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF

26

Nos. 1, 6.) On March 7, 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment while making several

27

arguments, including the argument that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the applicable statute of

28

limitations. (ECF No. 19.) On November 7, 2017, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s
1

1

claims were time-barred and recommended dismissal. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff requested — and

2

was granted — three extensions of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations,

3

but he never submitted any objections. (See ECF Nos. 37–42.) On March 30, 2018, this Court

4

adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full, granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

5

Judgment and closing the case. (ECF Nos. 43–44.)
On August 29, 2018, approximately five months after Defendants’ Motion for Summary

6
7

Judgement was granted and the case was closed, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

8

(ECF No. 45.) On October 23, 2018, the Court found Plaintiff’s motion was untimely and

9

Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any highly unusual circumstances justifying reversal, and

10

therefore denied the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e).1 (ECF

11

No. 46.)

12

On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a petition to the

13

Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 47.) The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s request because the request

14

was untimely under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (ECF No. 48 (citing Fed. R. App.

15

P. 4(a)(1)(A)).)

16

On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second Motion for Reconsideration, this time

17

citing “newly discovered evidence.” (ECF No. 49.) However, the Court found Plaintiff’s

18

exhibits and arguments failed to establish any new evidence or information that would change the

19

outcome of the case. (ECF No. 51 at 2.) Moreover, the Court found Plaintiff’s motion was

20

untimely. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion.2 (ECF No. 51.)
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third Motion for Reconsideration, titled “Motion for

21
22

Relief from Final Judgement [] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B).” (ECF No.

23

52.) Defendants opposed that motion on the basis that it was untimely, it failed to satisfy any

24

grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any diligence in

25
26
27
28

Rule 59(e) states “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.”
1

2

Plaintiff concurrently filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel with his second Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.) This motion was also denied. (ECF No. 51 at 2–3.)
2

1

pursuing this action. (ECF No. 53.) In response, Plaintiff filed a 51-page “Amended” motion on

2

August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 55.) The Court addresses and DENIES Plaintiff’s amended motion

3

for the reasons stated herein.

4

II.

5

Under Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve Plaintiff from final judgment for any of the

6

STANDARD OF LAW

following reasons:

7

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

8

(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);

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(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
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

17

A motion based on Rule 60(b) must be made “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

60(c)(1). With respect to subsections (1), (2), and (3), the motion must be filed “no more than a

19

year after the entry of judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b)(6) goes

20

further, empowering the court to reopen a judgment even after one year has passed. Pioneer Inv.

21

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). However, subsections (1)

22

through (3) are mutually exclusive of subsection (6), and thus a party who failed to take timely

23

action due to “excusable neglect” may not seek relief more than a year after the judgment by

24

resorting to subsection (6). Id. (citing Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.

25

847, 863, and n. 11 (1988)).

26

Furthermore, relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is to be granted “sparingly as an equitable

27

remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). To

28

justify such relief, a litigant must demonstrate “‘extraordinary circumstances’ suggesting that the
3

1

party is faultless in the delay.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 393; see also Keeling v. Sheet

2

Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United

3

States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1129 (9th Cir.1982)).

4

III.

ANALYSIS

5

Plaintiff moves for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and (6).3 (ECF No. 55 at 4.) He asserts

6

that Defendants and their agents intentionally prevented him from timely moving for

7

reconsideration by causing a lockdown and Modified Program4 to occur at the prison that

8

interfered with Plaintiff’s access to the law library and other resources, thus interfering with his

9

ability to litigate this case. (Id.) In support of this assertion, Plaintiff attaches his prior Motion

10

for Reconsideration and supporting exhibits (ECF No. 49), which include copies of a prison

11

grievance relating to the Modified Program Plaintiff complains of in his current Motion for

12

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 55 at 5–10, 19–25; see also ECF No. 49 at 9–14 (prison grievance

13

regarding Modified Program occurring from February 15–23, 2018).) Plaintiff’s arguments,

14

however, lack merit.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motions under Rule 60(b)(1) and (3) are time-barred.

15
16

Judgment was entered on March 30, 2018 (ECF No. 44); therefore, Plaintiff was required to file

17

his motion under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) by April 1, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). However,

18

Plaintiff did not file the instant “amended motion” until August 19, 2019, almost five months too

19

late.5 (ECF No. 55.) Consequently, Plaintiff’s motions seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (3)

20

are time-barred and therefore DENIED.

21

///

22

3

24

The Court notes Plaintiff is precluded from relief under subsection (6) because he asserted
claims under subsections (1) through (3). See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 393.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s motion fails under any subsection of which he avails himself, for the
reasons discussed herein.

25

4

23

26
27
28

Per the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, “Modified Program means the
suspension or restriction of less than all inmate program activities and/or movement.” (ECF No.
55 at 19.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s original motion, filed on June 19, 2019 (ECF No. 52), is
also time-barred under Rule 60(c)(1).
5

4

1

Second, Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6) fails because Plaintiff has identified no

2

“extraordinary circumstances” that would justify setting aside final judgement. Pioneer Inv.

3

Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 393; Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410; Lal, 610 F.3d at 524. To the contrary, the

4

Modified Program of which Plaintiff complains occurred from February 15–23, 2018, and was

5

accounted for in the magistrate judge’s order permitting Plaintiff to submit objections to the

6

Findings and Recommendations by March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff’s failure to submit

7

objections to the November 7, 2017, Findings and Recommendations after receiving three

8

extensions of time to do so, as well as his failure to file any motion for reconsideration until

9

nearly five months after the deadline to do so had passed, demonstrates Plaintiff’s failure to

10

exercise the diligence required to warrant Rule 60(b) relief. Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff

11

raises no new or additional arguments in the present motion, as Plaintiff’s argument about the

12

February 2018 Modified Program is identical to the argument asserted in his second Motion for

13

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 49; see also ECF No. 51.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion under

14

Rule 60(b)(6) must be DENIED.

15

IV.

CONCLUSION

16

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and the Rule 60 standard is not met here. Moreover, the

17

Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s request (ECF Nos. 52, 55), and

18

still finds the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 36) to be supported by the record and by

19

proper analysis. Plaintiff’s reassertion of prior arguments and “evidence” previously submitted

20

before this Court is unpersuasive. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s (amended) third Motion for

21

Reconsideration (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: November 1, 2019

24
25
26
27

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

28
5