(PC) Penton v. Hubard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY PENTON, No. 2:11-cv-00518-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 L. JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the Court’s order denying 21 Plaintiff’s renewed motion for default judgment because the Court failed to consider P0laintiff’s 22 timely-filed objections. (ECF No. 272.) 23 Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the 24 court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” based on the 25 following: 26 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have 27 been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 28 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 1 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed 2 or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) 3 any other reason that justifies relief. 4 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Rule 60(b) reconsideration is generally appropriate in three instances: (1) 5 | when there has been an intervening change of controlling law, (2) new evidence has come to 6 | light, or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” United States 7 | v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). 8 As argued by Plaintiff, timely objections to the findings and recommendations were filed g | and should have been considered. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and vacates the 10 | March 22, 2022 order. 11 On February 16, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 12 | which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 13 | the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed timely 14 | objections to the findings and recommendations. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 16 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 17 | court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 18 || analysis. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED; 21 2. The March 22, 2022 order (ECF No. 270) is VACATED; 22 3. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 16, 2022, (ECF No. 258), are 93 | adopted in full; and 94 4. Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 226) is DENIED without 25 | prejudice. 26 | DATED: March 29, 2022 rc’ /) 27 “ Yoko United States eet Judge