Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00228-6/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

JOE SHERMAN, 2:07-cv-0228-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ROBERT DYNES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Alter Judgment” (Doc.

22) filed on July 19, 2007. The court will construe this “motion” as a request under Federal Rule

60(b). 

This case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern

District of California local rules. On March 14, 2007, the magistrate judge issued an order

dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff requested

reconsideration of this order, and the order was affirmed on April 23, 2007. Plaintiff then filed

his amended complaint on May 15, 2007. The magistrate judge then issued findings and

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

Case 2:07-cv-00228-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/30/07 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

which relief can be granted. The basis for this recommendation was that granting relief on

plaintiff’s complaint would invalidate his probation conditions and his underlying conviction. 

After reviewing plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, the undersigned

issued an order adopting the findings and recommendations in full, dismissing the action and

directing that judgment be entered and the case closed.

Rule 60(b) allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment for limited

reasons, including: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In this case,

plaintiff does not set forth any claims of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, any

newly discovered evidence or fraud, nor does he claim the judgment is void or the judgment has

been satisfied. In fact, plaintiff specifically states that the underlying probation conditions are

still the subject of an ongoing habeas petition pending in state court. Because petitioner has not

shown that the probation conditions complained of have been invalidated, the court’s judgment

remains correct. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment

(Doc. 22) is DENIED. 

Dated: August 30, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00228-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2