Blackshire v. Sacramento Regional Transit

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/18/17: The court DENIES 7 MOTION for relief from judgment. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PATRICK BLACKSHIRE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. No. 2:16-cv-02540-MCE-AC ORDER SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s request for hearing. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff is 17 proceeding in this matter pro se, and accordingly this motion was referred to the undersigned 18 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion for relief 19 from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. For the reasons that follow, 20 plaintiff’s request is DENIED. 21 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 10, 2016, along with an application to proceed In 23 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. The undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP 24 and provided findings and recommendations to the district judge in this case recommending that 25 the complaint be dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff 26 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 4. On January 6, 2017, the 27 district judge adopted the findings and recommendations, ordering the case dismissed with 28 prejudice. ECF No. 5. Judgment was entered that same day. ECF No. 6. 1 1 2 II. THE MOTION On July 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Request for Hearing.” ECF No. 7. The 3 motion asks the court to re-open the case. Id. The court construes the filing as a motion for relief 4 from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment or any order where one of 7 more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) 8 newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered 9 within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an 10 opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other 11 reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration on any of these 12 grounds must be brought within a reasonable time, and no later than one year, of the entry of the 13 judgment or the order being challenged. Id. Plaintiff has not argued any of these grounds for 14 relief from judgment. Relief from judgment is not warranted, and this court’s prior entry of 15 judgment is final. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 7. 18 IT IS SO ORDERD. 19 DATED: September 18, 2017 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?