Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01047-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TONY ALLEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. MAYR, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1047-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2014, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of this case 

under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 110 and 183(b), 

because plaintiff failed to obey the court’s orders and prosecute the action after defendant filed a 

motion to dismiss. ECF No. 22. Neither party objected to the recommendation. On June 5, 

2014, this court adopted the recommendation in full and entered judgment. ECF Nos. 23, 24. Six 

months later, plaintiff filed a “motion for reinstatement of case and [permission] to file amended 

petition,” which the court construes as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). 

ECF No. 25. Defendant opposed the motion, and plaintiff filed a reply. ECF Nos. 28, 29. For 

the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01047-KJM-EFB Document 30 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Rule 60(b) provides: 

 

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, 

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In his motion, plaintiff asserts that he failed to respond to defendant’s 

motion to dismiss or to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal because of 

his “confinement in ad-seg,” and his transfers between Folsom State Prison and the California 

Men’s Colony. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support this assertion, which is flatly contradicted 

by the declaration of H. Cervantes, the Litigation Coordinator at the California Men’s Colony, 

which was filed with defendant’s opposition. ECF No. 28-1. Cervantes submits a copy of 

plaintiff’s “bed assignment,” which shows that plaintiff remained housed in general population at 

the California Men’s Colony from the date that defendant filed his motion to dismiss on January 

27, 2014, until the date that this case was closed, on June 5, 2014. See id. ¶ 2, Ex. A. Defendants 

have also presented evidence that plaintiff received mail from this court on several dates during 

the relevant time period. See id. ¶ 3, Ex. B. In his reply brief, ECF No. 29, plaintiff fails to 

address defendant’s evidence or otherwise clarify his argument for relief from judgment. 

Plaintiff has not shown that his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss or the 

recommended dismissal of this action was the result of excusable neglect, nor has he shown any 

other reason that would warrant relief from the judgment entered herein. Accordingly, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “motion for reinstatement of case and [permission] to file 

amended petition,” ECF No. 25, is construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 

Rule 60(b) and, so construed, is denied. 

DATED: September 22, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01047-KJM-EFB Document 30 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2