Patu v. Hutchins et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 41 Motion to Reopen Case, signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Solomona Patu, Prisoner ID: 778665)(SWT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHNIGTON

1
2
3
4

SOLOMONA RICK PATU,
Plaintiff,

5
6

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE.

v.

7

No. C15-0720-RSL-MAT

TERRY HUTCHINS,
and ANNIE SCOTT,

8

Defendants.

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff asks this court reopen his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, (ECF No. 10), after
being dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 34). A

13

motion to reopen is properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment based on Federal Rule

14

of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Stephann v. Astrue, 263 F. App’x 646, 647 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 60

15

allows a court to relieve a party from a judgement or order for various enumerated reasons and

16

“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This catchall provision “has been

17
used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” and “is to be utilized only
18
19

where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or

20

correct an erroneous judgment.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047,

21

1049 (9th Cir.1993).

22

Here, the Plaintiff has not alleged an extraordinary circumstance that would justify the

23

reopening of this case. It appears that Plaintiff seeks to reopen the case because he has continued

24

to experience incidents of chronic constipation when he has not received Metamucil. The incidents

25
Plaintiff alleges are of the same character and frequency that Plaintiff originally brought before
this Court. For the same reasons stated in the prior judgement, (ECF No. 33), such incidents are
1

1
2

“insufficient to implicate Eight Amendment concerns,” let alone represent extraordinary
circumstances required to relieve a party of a prior judgement under Rule 60(b)(6).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the

3
4
5

Case.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2017.

6
7
8
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2