Evans v. Suisun Police Department, et al.,

Filing 27

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/21/2019 DENYING 18 , 21 and 23 pots-judgment motions. No further filings will be accepted in this matter. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD ANTHONY EVANS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-01889-KJM-DMC (P)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SUISUN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On August 7, 2018, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

18

recommendations, ECF No. 13, and dismissed this case for failure to state a claim and for lack of

19

prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. ECF No. 16. Since that time,

20

plaintiff has filed three post-judgment motions: a motion to reopen the case, ECF No. 18; a

21

motion for federal protection and release from CDCR custody, ECF No. 21; and a motion to

22

obtain a personal laptop containing evidence, ECF No. 23. Each of these motions is DENIED.

23

Principally, plaintiff seeks to reopen this case based on “newly discovered

24

evidence” related to his underlying convictions. ECF No. 16. But, as the magistrate judge

25

correctly explained, and this court so adopted, a challenge related to a state prisoner’s underlying

26

conviction is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; rather, the sole remedy for such a challenge

27

comes through a petition for habeas corpus. ECF No. 13 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

28

475, 500 (1973)). Thus, any “newly discovered evidence” purportedly available to plaintiff does
1

1

not alter his ability to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Therefore, plaintiff presents

2

no justification for reopening this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (enumerating grounds for

3

relief from judgment). Because there are no grounds for post-judgment relief, plaintiff’s two

4

additional motions, ECF Nos. 21, 23, are also DENIED.

5
6
7
8

Accordingly, plaintiff’s three post-judgment motions, ECF Nos. 18, 21, 23, are
DENIED. No further filings will be accepted in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 21, 2019.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2