Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00736-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDA JOHNSON-RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0736 DFL JFM PS

vs.

EASTERN DISTRICT 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On March 21, 2005, defendant’s motion to dismiss

this action was granted and this action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Judgment was entered on the same day. On April 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial

pursuant to Local Rule 59-291. In her April 25, 2005 document entitled “Objection,” plaintiff

appended a declaration in support of her motion for new trial or reversal of judgment in CIV S03-0422 DFL JFM.

Plaintiff appears to seek relief from this court’s order granting defendant’s motion

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, plaintiff has provided no new

evidence in support of her motion. Rather, plaintiff rehashes the basis of her objections raised to

the October 8, 2004 findings and recommendations. In addition, plaintiff continues to attempt to

Case 2:04-cv-00736-DFL -JFM Document 40 Filed 06/08/05 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

revisit issues raised in CIV S-03-0422 DFL JFM in the instant action, despite being advised that

entry of judgment in another case does not provide plaintiff with a claim for relief in a new

action. (October 8, 2004 Findings and Recommendations at 2.) Thus, plaintiff has not shown

any grounds which justify relief from the judgment entered in this action. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

April 4, 2005 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 ten 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.” 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: June 8, 2005. 

1

rich0736.59

Case 2:04-cv-00736-DFL -JFM Document 40 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2