(PC) White v. Pfeiffer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 BOBBY WHITE, 1:19-cv-01786-JLT-GSA (PC) 13 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 14 v. MOTION TO REOPEN CASE BE DENIED 15 PFEIFFER, et al., (ECF No. 28.) 16 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Bobby White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 23 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the 24 Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On November 17, 2021, the Court dismissed 25 this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 23.) Judgment was 26 entered on November 17, 2021. (ECF No. 24.) 27 On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case. (ECF No. 28.) The motion is 28 unopposed. 1 II. MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 2 A. Rule 60(b) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final 4 order or judgment on grounds of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 5 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 6 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 7 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 8 misconduct by an opposing party; 9 (4) the judgment is void; 10 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier 11 judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 12 longer equitable; or 13 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 15 A Rule 60(b) motion must be made “within a reasonable time -- and for reasons (1), (2), 16 and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order of the date of the 17 proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); see Hogan v. Robinson, 2009 WL 1085478, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 18 Apr. 22, 2009 (Rule 60(b)(6) motion “filed over 18 months after judgment was entered, and over 19 two years after Plaintiffs were put on notice of the facts and circumstances upon which they rely[ 20 ]” was untimely); Swait v. Evans, 2008 WL 4330291, at *5– 6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008) (Rule 21 60(b) motions untimely where petitioner “failed to proffer any legally valid explanation for his two- 22 year delay” in filing). 23 B. Rule 59(e) – Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of 24 the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 25 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 26 Plaintiff requests the Court to reopen his case. He argues that the Court dismissed this case 27 in error and/or abuse of authority. He asserts that the reason the case was dismissed does not fit 28 1 with his record and states that “[w]hen a District Judge was assigned to this case, Dismissal Orders 2 were immediately put in place to dispose of this case of merit.” (ECF No. 28 at 1.) 3 Discussion 4 The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. The Court’s record shows that this case 5 was dismissed after allowing Plaintiff multiple opportunities to avoid dismissal, but Plaintiff failed 6 to comply with the Court’s orders. 7 Plaintiff’s case was dismissed and judgment was entered on November 17, 8 2021, because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s February 25, 2021 order 9 dismissing his case with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff requested and 10 was granted extensions of time to file his amended complaint on March 10, 2021 11 and April 29, 2021. (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 17, 18.) On August 27, 2021, the court 12 issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed for 13 failure to comply with the Court’s order. (ECF No. 19.) On September 16, 2021, 14 Plaintiff was granted a 30-day extension of time to file objections to the findings 15 and recommendations. (ECF No. 21.) The thirty-day deadline expired, and Plaintiff 16 failed to file objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations. 17 (Court Record.) On November 17, 2021, the District Judge adopted the findings 18 and recommendations and dismissed this case. (ECF No. 23.) 19 Plaintiff fails to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion to reopen his case under 20 Rule 60(b). He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” He has not 21 shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the 22 judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, Plaintiff has not presented any reason justifying 23 relief from judgment. Plaintiff’s argument that the Court dismissed this case “in error and/or abuse 24 of authority” is without merit. Accordingly, the undersigned shall recommend that Plaintiff’s 25 motion to reopen this case be denied. 26 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to 28 reopen this case, filed on May 2, 2022, be denied. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 7 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: September 22, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28