Maynard v. Unknown Correctional Officer A et al

Filing 70

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons explained, Plaintiff's Motions 59 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 , and 67 are DENIED. Signed on 10/25/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 10/25/2024.) (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

CODY MAYNARD

Case No. 3:20-cv-00691-MK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.

CISNEROS, et al.
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge
Before the Court are several motions requesting that the Court reopen the case and make
decisions about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. ECF Nos. 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, and 67. Two years
ago, Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) on June 7,
2022, granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 41.
The Court found no clear error and therefore adopted Judge Kasubhai’s F&R. See ECF No. 44.
On July 14, 2022, the case was dismissed. ECF No. 45.
On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of both Judge
Kasubhai’s F&R and the Court’s Order Adopting the F&R. ECF No. 46. The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to file supplemental briefing. ECF Nos. 52, 55, and later, denied the motion for
reconsideration. See ECF No. 58 (Order denying Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No 46).

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s requests to reopen the case is best construed as a Motion for Relief From
Judgment under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff cites to Rule 60(b). See ECF No. 69 at 2. Relief can be
available under Rule 60(b) “only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged
judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider, ECF Nos. 59, 61, and 65 are denied. Plaintiff raises
arguments and states facts that the Court has fully considered and adjudicated concerning being
placed in a closed area with inmates who assaulted him on the basis of his former transgender
status. Plaintiff cites to other cases of negligence and assault based on sexual orientation, but that
information is not new evidence about Plaintiff’s case, and it also does not set forth any intervening
change in the law binding on the Court, or any law about which which the Court was not already
apprised.
Plaintiff also moves to subpoena Defendants’ attorney, ECF No. 63; for a telephonic
hearing about his motions and for a settlement conference, ECF No. 64; and for a status update in
his case, ECF No. 67. Finding no basis to set aside the judgment and reopen the case, the Court
finds those the motion for a subpoena and settlement conference moot, and those motions. ECF
No. 63 and 64 are denied. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an update about his case, as this
Order shall serve as an update that the Judgement will not be set aside. Plaintiff must follow

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

through with the administrative remedies available to him and go through the proper channels to
obtain relief provided under the law.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, and 67 are
DENIED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this

25th

day of October 2024.

/s/Ann Aiken
Ann Aiken
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER