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)

Download PDF
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?