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
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?