Stephen v. Williams et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 79 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JIMMIE EARL STEPHEN,

Case No. 14-cv-01245-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT

9
10

ALVAREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 79

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, plaintiff sued several prison officials for

14

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. On June 7, 2016, the court granted defendants’

15

motion for summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and entered

16

judgment against plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed a motion to re-open the action, in which he

17

appeared to contend that he had exhausted administrative remedies, although not until after the

18

judgment was entered. The court denied the motion to re-open. Docket No. 78.

19

Plaintiff now returns with a motion for relief from judgment due to mistake, inadvertence,

20

excusable neglect and a void judgment. Docket No. 79. Plaintiff’s garbled motion repeats his

21

disagreement with the court’s determination that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies

22

before filing this action.

23

A party may seek relief from judgment due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

24

excusable neglect.”

25

inadvertence or surprise that warrants relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiff also has failed to show

26

excusable neglect. To determine whether neglect is excusable, the court must articulate and

27

consider at least these four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the

28

length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiff has failed to show any mistake,

1

whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220,

2

1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting standard to determine excusable neglect as set forth in Pioneer

3

Inv. Servs. Co. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); Lemoge v. United

4

States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). The four factors are not exclusive, and other factors

5

may be relevant, depending on the circumstances of the case. Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1195; see e.g.,

6

id. (considering prejudice to plaintiffs due to statute of limitations problems). This court cannot

7

find excusable neglect or that any of these four factors weigh in favor of setting aside the

8

judgment because plaintiff’s garbled motion for relief from judgment does not identify what the

9

neglect consisted of, let alone explain how such neglect was excusable.
Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to grant relief from a judgment when the “judgment is void.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Although plaintiff lists a “void judgment” as one of the bases for seeking

12

relief from judgment, see Docket No. 79-1 at 1, nothing in his motion remotely suggests any basis

13

for a determination that the judgment is void.

14

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. Docket No. 79.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: October 28, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2