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)

Download PDF
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

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?