Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01330/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01330-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1330 RRB EFB P

vs.

J. BURLESON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 4, 2004, plaintiff, a prisoner without counsel, filed a complaint seeking relief

from alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed that defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, i.e., chronic lower back pain. He asserted

that (1) Brown, Acting Warden of CTF-Soledad, did not respond at all to his medical needs; (2)

defendant Grewal examined plaintiff, but did nothing for his lower back pain; (3) defendant

Rosenthal examined plaintiff on several occasions for chronic back pain, but did not provide

adequate medical care; (4) defendants Friedman, Grannis and Burleson denied his request for a

transfer to a different prison so that he could obtain adequate medical care. Defendants moved

for summary judgment. On September 29, 2006, the district court adopted in full the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations in favor of granting defendants’ motion and judgment 

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 72 Filed 06/22/07 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

2

was entered in their favor. On June 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment

entered.

Federal rule 60 governs granting relief from judgment: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order

or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

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

which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to

move for a new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,

or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a

prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment

should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating he is entitled to relief from

judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s June 14, 2007, motion is denied.

So ordered.

ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 72 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2