Mendoza v. Warm Springs Prison

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING plaintiff's 44 Motion for Relief From Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 9 ELISANDRO MENDOZA 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 STEFANIE HUMPHREY; et al. 13 Defendants. 3:09-cv-0717-LRH-VPC ORDER 14 15 Before the court is plaintiff Elisandro Mendoza’s (“Mendoza”) motion for relief from 16 judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #44. 17 I. 18 Facts and Procedural History Plainitff Mendoza is an inmate currently incarcerated that the Lovelock Correctional Center 19 (“Lovelock”). Prior to his incarceration at Lovelock, Mendoza was incarcerated at the Warm 20 Springs Correction Center (“Warm Springs”). While at Warm Springs, Mendoza alleges that he 21 was attacked by several inmates on orders of the warden for attempting to expose the kitchen’s use 22 of expired foodstuffs. 23 Subsequently, Mendoza initiated the underlying civil rights complaint alleging violations of 24 his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doc. #10. In response, defendants filed a motion to 25 dismiss Mendoza’s complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Doc. #26. The 26 court granted defendants’ motion and Mendoza’s case was dismissed. Doc. #42. Thereafter, 1 Mendoza filed the present motion for relief from judgment. Doc. #44. 2 II. Discussion 3 Mendoza brings his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). A 4 motion for relief from judgment is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 5 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 6 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b)(6) provides that a district court may relieve a party from a 7 final judgment for any reason that justifies such relief. FED . R. CIV . P. 60(b)(6). 8 9 The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that relief from judgment is not warranted in this action. In his motion, Mendoza argues that his action 10 should have been stayed, rather than dismissed for his failure to exhaust his administrative 11 remedies. However, there is no legal support for Mendoza’s argument. Rather, the opposite is true; 12 if a district court determines that a prisoner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, “the 13 proper remedy is dismissal of the claim.” V Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Therefore, the court finds that Mendoza has failed to meet his burden under Rule 60(b)(6) and the 15 court shall deny his motion accordingly. 16 17 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (Doc. #44) is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED this 16th day of April, 2012. 21 22 __________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 2

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?