Nichols v. Medina et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 41 Motion to Vacate Sentence (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH NICHOLS,

Case No. 13-cv-05773-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT

9
10

ELOY MEDINA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner that was dismissed and closed.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

14

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be made

15

within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one year after the

16

judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the finality

17

of a judgment or suspend its operation, see id.; therefore, a party is not relieved of its obligation to

18

comply with the court’s orders simply by filing a Rule 60(b) motion. See Hook v. Arizona Dep’t

19

of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1404 (9th Cir. 1997).
Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1)

20
21

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse

22

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying

23

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when “it is no longer

25
26
27
28

equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,” or when there is any other
reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir.
2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
After receiving four months of extensions, plaintiff eventually filed a first amended
complaint that the Court reviewed and dismissed for failure to state a claim and because many of

1

the allegations were time barred by the four year state statute of limitations. See Docket No. 39.
In his motion for relief from a judgment, plaintiff alleges that the amended complaint received by

2

the Court was not sent by him. Plaintiff states that he has only now submitted an amended

3

complaint, seven months after the original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff

4

seeks the case to be reopened and this new complaint to be reviewed.

5
6
7

The amended complaint reviewed and dismissed by the Court contained a signature from
plaintiff that is substantially similar to the signature on the instant motion. Regardless of what
may have transpired, the Court has reviewed plaintiff’s latest complaint and will deny this motion.
Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on June 27, 2008, and defendants were deliberately

8
9
10

indifferent to his safety. These allegations would be time barred for the same reasons as stated by
the Court in the previous order of dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled
to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), and his latest claims are untimely.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a final judgment (Docket Nos. 41) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH NICHOLS,

Case No. 13-cv-05773-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

ELOY MEDINA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 11/20/2014, 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
19

Joseph Nichols ID: H-87217
Calif. State Prison--L.A. County
P.O. Box 8457
Lancaster, CA 93539-8457

20
21

Dated: 11/20/2014

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
3