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)

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