Bouie v. Fox

Filing 51

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/09/21 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment 50 be denied. Motion 50 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR.,

12

No. 2:17-cv-2044 TLN AC P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

ROBERT FOX,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
17

By order filed December 20, 2018, respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted and the

18

petition was dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 40. Petitioner has now filed a motion for relief

19

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). EFC No. 44.

20
21

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may grant relief
from a final judgment for the following reasons:

22

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

23

(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);

24
25
26
27
28

(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
1

1

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

2

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The rule further provides that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made

4

within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of

5

the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Petitioner seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) from the December 20, 2018 order

6
7

dismissing his petition (ECF No. 40). ECF No. 50 at 7-8. He argues that the District Judge erred

8

in adopting the September 12, 2018 findings and recommendations, which found that the petition

9

was untimely due to an unexplained, six-month delay, even though his state petitions were not

10

denied as untimely, he had been separated from his legal property during that time, and he was

11

still pursuing his administrative remedies. Id. at 8-9, 12-16.
To the extent petitioner relies on subsections 1 of Rule 60(b), his motion is clearly

12
13

untimely as it exceeds the one-year time limit by over fourteen months and should be denied.

14

Petitioner also argues that, in the alternative, he should be granted relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

15

ECF No. 50 at 9.

16

A party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must satisfy three
requirements. The motion cannot be premised on another ground
delineated in the Rule, See Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 & n.11, 108 S. Ct. 2194, 100 L. Ed.2d 855
(1988); it must be filed “within a reasonable time,” see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(c)(1); and it must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances”
justifying reopening the judgment, See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393, 113 S. Ct. 1489,
123 L. Ed.2d 74 (1993). Extraordinary circumstances occur where
there are “other compelling reasons” for opening the judgment.
Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 613, 69 S. Ct. 384, 93 L.
Ed. 266 (1949).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2020). However, petitioner’s motion simply repeats

24

arguments made in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 23, objections to the

25

September 12, 2018 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 36, and reply in support of his

26

objections, ECF No. 38, and is little more than a request that the court reconsider its previous

27

decision. Petitioner was clearly aware of these circumstances in 2018, when his petition was

28

////
2

1

dismissed, and he therefore fails to demonstrate that the instant motion, brought over two years

2

later, was brought “within a reasonable time.”

3
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgement, ECF No. 50, be DENIED.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

8

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

10

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

11

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

12

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

13

DATED: March 9, 2021

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3