Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02797/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02797-17/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 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for alleged violations of his 

civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 19, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although the motion is not entirely clear, the 

court construes the target of the motion to be the court’s decision to grant summary judgment in 

favor of defendants Carter and Bigford and enter judgment against plaintiff on all claims. (Docs. 

No. 93, 94.) 

 Plaintiff seeks to vacate the court’s judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence 

that he believes supports his claim that the defendants, both correctional officers, unlawfully 

deprived him of his personal property. The new evidence comes in the form of affidavits by two 

fellow prisoners who witnessed the defendants’ alleged destruction of plaintiff’s personal 

property. (See Motion (Doc. No. 124) at 2, 38, and 40.) 

//// 

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 127 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

A motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) on the basis of newly discovered evidence 

requires the moving party to show that the evidence “(1) existed at the time of trial, (2) could not 

have been discovered through due diligence, and (3) was ‘of such magnitude that production of it 

earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.’” Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 

921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). 

Without ruling on the first two factors, the court finds that this motion fails under the 

third. The court granted summary judgment on the claim for deprivation of personal property 

because plaintiff had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. (See Findings 

and Recommendations (Doc. No. 85) at 10; Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations 

(Doc. No. 93).) “[W]here the state provides a meaningful post deprivation remedy, only 

authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause.” 

(Findings and Recommendations at 10 (relying on Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)).) 

The court found no evidence of an authorized deprivation of property; therefore dismissal of the 

claim was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s judgment on the same ground. 

(USCA Memorandum (Doc. No. 125) at 2 (citing Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 

1994).) Plaintiff’s newly obtained affidavits from witnesses to the alleged deprivation of his 

personal property would not have changed the application of that rule of law to dismiss his claim. 

In other words, plaintiff has made no showing that these sworn declarations would have had any 

effect on the final disposition of his case. Therefore the motion to vacate judgment on the basis of 

newly discovered evidence is without merit. 

Finally, plaintiff has attached a written statement from a prisoner attesting to the alleged 

inadequacy of inmates’ access to the prison library at High Desert State Prison and of the legal 

materials there. (See Motion at 33-34.) The statement is not signed, sworn or dated and is 

therefore of little reliability. Moreover, plaintiff makes no showing that because of inadequate 

library access or materials he was prejudiced or hindered in pursuing his claims in this case. See 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-51 (1996). Therefore, to the extent plaintiff seeks relief from 

judgment on the basis of this third, unsworn declaration, his motion fails. 

//// 

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 127 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The motion to vacate (Docket No. 124) is denied. 

2. This case be closed. 

DATED: March 20, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:10-cv-02797-JAM-DAD Document 127 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3