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)

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