Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01894/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01894-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JAMES MOTTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-1894 FCD DAD P

vs.

MANUEL GUADERRAMA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who filed a pro se complaint for relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on August 31, 2000. Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s September 11, 2000

order requiring him to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application. Nor did he

respond to the magistrate judge’s October 26, 2000 recommendation that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. The case was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 4,

2000. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal or any other document in this case until October

12, 2006. Almost six years after the case was closed, plaintiff has filed an untitled document in

which he speaks of an appeal and refers to Rules 60(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Rule 59(e) provides that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed

no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). To the extent that

Case 2:00-cv-01894-FCD-DAD Document 9 Filed 11/01/06 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

plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(e), his request is untimely and must be denied.

Rule 60(b) provides as follows:

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

party . . . 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. The motion shall be made

within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more

than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered

or taken. . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the district

court. See Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1989); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986); Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, 513

F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. 1975); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 678 F. Supp. 1456, 1457 (E.D. Cal. 1988).

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion is barred with respect to reasons (1), (2), and (3)

because the motion has been filed more than one year after judgment. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that reason (4) or reason (5) has any application to this case. With regard to reason

(6), plaintiff’s motion has not been made within a reasonable time and presents no basis for relief

from a judgment that resulted from his own failure to respond to court orders.

The court finds no basis for relief from judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 12, 2006 motion is denied.

DATED: October 31, 2006

Case 2:00-cv-01894-FCD-DAD Document 9 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 2