Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02797/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02797-13/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

JESSE STEPHEN KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE MCDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On July 11, 

2013, the district court entered an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

denying plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, to amend, and for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 

93.) Judgment was entered on the same day. (ECF No. 94.) On July 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a 

document styled “Opposition to Order of Judgment.” (ECF No. 96.) On August 5, 2013, 

defendants filed an opposition to the document filed by plaintiff. (ECF No. 101.) On the same 

day, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s July 11, 2013 order and judgment 

thereon. (ECF No. 102.)

On September 4, 2013, this court entered an order finding plaintiff’s July 30, 2013 filing 

to be too vague and conclusory to require or support further consideration and ordering the 

document disregarded. (ECF No. 105.) It has now come to the court’s attention that on August 

9, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an order construing the 

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 111 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 4
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

document filed by plaintiff with this court as “a timely filed motion listed in Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)” and holding plaintiff’s appeal in abeyance pending resolution of that

motion by the district court. (ECF No. 108.) The Ninth Circuit’s order, however, was not entered 

on the docket in this action until October 9, 2013. See id. Good cause appearing, this court’s 

September 4, 2013 order that plaintiff’s July 30, 2013 filing be disregarded will be vacated and 

this court will make findings and recommendations with respect to plaintiff’s July 30, 2013 

motion.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) includes motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) in the list of motions the pendency of which delay the time for filing a notice of appeal until 

resolution thereof. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(vi). In view of the order from the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, the court now construes plaintiff’s July 30, 2013 filing as a motion brought pursuant 

to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule provides in relevant part:

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;

. . . . ; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Plaintiff makes several contentions in his motion. First, he objects to the court’s denial of 

leave to amend his complaint on the ground that Mike McDonald is no longer the Warden of 

High Desert State Prison (High Desert) and Robert L. Gower is now the Warden of that 

institution. In this regard, the court declined to grant plaintiff leave to proceed on his first 

amended complaint plaintiff tendered in April 30, 2012 on the grounds that plaintiff had not 

sought leave of court to amend his complaint and his first amended complaint was filed well past 

the deadline set in this action for filing dispositive motions. (See Order and Findings and 

Recommendations filed May 1, 2013 (ECF No. 85) at 2.) Thereafter, the court declined to 

reconsider that order on the ground that plaintiff had not shown a basis for relief from his delay in 

seeking leave to amend the complaint. (See id.) Plaintiff’s contention that there is now a new 

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 111 Filed 10/15/13 Page 2 of 4
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

3

warden at High Desert neither explains his delay nor demonstrates entitlement to relief from those 

orders. 

Plaintiff also objects to entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants Bigford and 

Carter. First, plaintiff apparently contends that he should have been granted leave to amend his 

complaint. This argument is inapposite, as the decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment was not based on defects in the allegations of the operative complaint but on the 

evidence before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Second, plaintiff contends that summary judgment should have been denied on his second 

claim for relief arising from the deprivation of his personal property because he filed a state tort 

claim which was rejected by the State Government Claims Board. The question of whether 

plaintiff may bring a federal civil rights claim for deprivation of property turns, in this case, on 

whether the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss (see Order and 

Findings and Recommendations filed May 1, 2013 (ECF No. 85) at 10), not on whether or not 

relief is actually obtained through that remedial process. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 

531-33 & n. 11 (1984).1 Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to relief from the judgment in favor 

of defendants on this claim.

Plaintiff also contends that defendant Carter destroyed 125 of plaintiff’s “personal legal 

books and court transcripts.” (Opposition filed July 30, 2013 (ECF No. 96) at 17.) This assertion 

does not address plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that defendants’ alleged actions interfered with 

his constitutional right to challenge his criminal conviction. Nor does it contravene this court’s 

findings that before any of the events at issue in this civil rights action, plaintiff challenged his 

criminal conviction through the direct appeal process to the California Supreme Court and that 

since January 2000, when that appeal was denied, he has filed thirty-one habeas corpus petitions 

in that Court. (See Order and Findings and Recommendations filed May 1, 2013 (ECF No. 85), 

at 9.)

/////

 

1

Put another way, this is not a question of whether plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his claim 

through use of available state procedures.

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 111 Filed 10/15/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Plaintiff makes a number of other assertions in his motion concerning just compensation, 

privacy, and retaliation, none of which demonstrate that plaintiff is entitled to relief from the 

judgment entered on the claims raised in this action. Plaintiff also raises arguments concerning 

the application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) in this case. However, the court did 

not rely on the decision in Heck in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and such 

arguments do not demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to relief from the judgment entered in this 

action.

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this court’s September 

4, 2013 order (ECF No. 105) is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s July 30, 2013 “opposition” be 

construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and, so 

construed, that the motion be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 11, 2013

DAD:12

king10cv2797.60b

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 111 Filed 10/15/13 Page 4 of 4