Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE EARL STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALVAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01245-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 79

In this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, plaintiff sued several prison officials for 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. On June 7, 2016, the court granted defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and entered 

judgment against plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed a motion to re-open the action, in which he 

appeared to contend that he had exhausted administrative remedies, although not until after the

judgment was entered. The court denied the motion to re-open. Docket No. 78.

Plaintiff now returns with a motion for relief from judgment due to mistake, inadvertence, 

excusable neglect and a void judgment. Docket No. 79. Plaintiff’s garbled motion repeats his 

disagreement with the court’s determination that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies 

before filing this action. 

A party may seek relief from judgment due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiff has failed to show any mistake, 

inadvertence or surprise that warrants relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiff also has failed to show 

excusable neglect. To determine whether neglect is excusable, the court must articulate and 

consider at least these four factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the 

length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 80 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 

1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting standard to determine excusable neglect as set forth in Pioneer 

Inv. Servs. Co. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); Lemoge v. United 

States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). The four factors are not exclusive, and other factors 

may be relevant, depending on the circumstances of the case. Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1195; see e.g., 

id. (considering prejudice to plaintiffs due to statute of limitations problems). This court cannot

find excusable neglect or that any of these four factors weigh in favor of setting aside the 

judgment because plaintiff’s garbled motion for relief from judgment does not identify what the 

neglect consisted of, let alone explain how such neglect was excusable.

Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to grant relief from a judgment when the “judgment is void.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Although plaintiff lists a “void judgment” as one of the bases for seeking 

relief from judgment, see Docket No. 79-1 at 1, nothing in his motion remotely suggests any basis 

for a determination that the judgment is void. 

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. Docket No. 79. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 80 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 2