Jones v. Fox, et al.

Filing 82

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/27/19 DENYING plaintiff's post-judgment motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 65 & 66 ).(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2190-JAM-EFB P

v.

ORDER

FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2018, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation

of dismissal and dismissed this action. ECF No. 62. Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff subsequently filed two “notice[s] of objection[s]” to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations. ECF Nos. 65 & 66. The magistrate judge issued an order on September 24,
2018 taking no action on these post-judgment motions because the case was closed. ECF No. 67.
On October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 70. On December 20, 2018, the
Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s post-judgment motions sought reconsideration of the
court’s August 29, 2018 final order of dismissal and remanded the matter to this court for
consideration of those motions. ECF No. 75. The motions, considered under the standards set
forth in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will be denied.
/////
1

1

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of a final

2

judgment where one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

3

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not

4

have been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation,

5

or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment;

6

and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration on

7

any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time, and no later than one year, of the

8

entry of the judgment or the order being challenged. Id. Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires

9

a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show the “new or different facts or circumstances

10

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

11

grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j).

12
13
14
15

Here, plaintiff’s motions are incoherent. They articulate no grounds for reconsideration of
the court’s final order. Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden under Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s post-judgment motions for
reconsideration (ECF Nos. 65 & 66) are denied.

16
17
18
19

DATED: March 27, 2019
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2