Moore v. Bulatao et al
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge James Donato denying 68 Motion for Reconsideration. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CHARLES EDWARD MOORE,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 13-cv-02852-JD
v.
A. BULATAO, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM FINAL
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 68
12
13
This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The Court granted defendants’
motion to dismiss on November 16, 2016, and this case was dismissed and closed. Plaintiff has
14
15
filed a motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be made
16
within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one year after the
17
judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where
18
one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
19
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the
court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
20
21
been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v.
ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for parties to
22
seek relief from a judgment when “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
23
prospective application,” or when there is any other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D.
24
v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff has failed to present newly discovered evidence, show a mistake by the Court or
present any other arguments to satisfy Rule 60(b). Plaintiff presents legal arguments that were
previously presented or could have been presented in the opposition to the motion to dismiss. The
Court found that a prison regulation outlining the procedures for guards to interact with inmates
did not violate due process and plaintiff’s action failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1
Because plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), this
motion (Docket No. 68) is DENIED.
2
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2018
5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
CHARLES EDWARD MOORE,
Case No. 13-cv-02852-JD
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
A. BULATAO, et al.,
Defendants.
8
9
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
That on January 9, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
Charles Edward Moore ID: C-86605
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94964
19
20
Dated: January 9, 2018
21
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO
27
28
3
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?