(PC) Anderson v. Silva ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR CLARENCE ANDERSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-01612-LJO-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 13 v. (ECF No. 23) 14 SILVA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 18 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On February 7, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which 21 relief may be granted. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on February 19, 2019, (ECF 22 No. 9), and the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations on February 20, 2019, 23 (ECF No. 10). Judgment was entered accordingly the same date. (ECF No. 11.) 24 On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 25 (ECF No. 12.) As Plaintiff did not provide a reason for the requested extension of time, the 26 motion was denied. (ECF No. 13.) 27 On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff nevertheless filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s February 28 20, 2019 dismissal order and judgment. (ECF No. 14.) That appeal was dismissed by the United 1 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 23, 2019, for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF 2 No. 17.) 3 Thereafter, on May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal 4 of the Court’s April 4, 2019 order, together with a second notice of appeal with respect to the 5 Court’s final judgment entered February 20, 2019. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) Again, as Plaintiff did not 6 provide a reason for his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal, the motion was denied. (ECF 7 No. 22.) Similarly, the Ninth Circuit dismissed his second appeal for lack of jurisdiction on June 8 26, 2019. (ECF No. 21.) 9 On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 23.) As Plaintiff had also filed motions to 11 reconsider in the two closed appeals, the Court deferred ruling on the motion. See Anderson v. 12 Silva, Case No. 19-15696, Doc. 5, filed May 8, 2019; Anderson v. Silva, Case No. 19-16075, 13 Doc. 9, filed July 8, 2019. Both motions for reconsideration were denied by the Ninth Circuit, 14 (ECF Nos. 24, 25), and therefore Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment or order is currently 15 before the Court. 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 17 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 18 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 19 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 20 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 22 event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 23 Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to 24 show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 25 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to 26 reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 27 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). 28 To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 1 to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. 2 Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 3 (9th Cir. 1987). 4 Plaintiff’s motion again fails to set forth any grounds for relief from the Court’s final 5 judgment, aside from his attempts to file appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Although the filing is more 6 than fifty pages in length, all but two pages are merely attached exhibits of filings submitted to or 7 orders received from the Ninth Circuit, and Plaintiff provides no explanation as to their relevance 8 or significance to his motion. Ultimately, this action was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to 9 state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the 10 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, and those objections were fully considered in 11 the Court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations. The instant motion provides no 12 information regarding what new or different facts, circumstances, or law he might present that 13 were not already raised in his objections, and thus no basis for overturning the Court’s judgment. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, (ECF No. 23), is 15 DENIED. This action remains closed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 6, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28