Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03101/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03101-5/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

 The court notes that plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See Docket 1

Entry # 7, entered on the docket on January 5, 2009. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MILLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3101 GGH P

vs.

T. PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 22, 2010, this action was dismissed with prejudice and judgment 1

was entered. On March 29, 2010, plaintiff filed a “notice of motion objection” which the court

construes as Rule 60(b) motion. 

Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case

in limited circumstances, “including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). “Motions for relief from

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are addressed to the

sound discretion of the district court.” Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annunity

Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997).

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/21/10 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

Once a decision of law is made, it becomes the “law of the case,” and absent clear

error or changed circumstances should not be changed. See United States v. Estrada-Lucas, 651

F.2d 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir.1980). The law of the case doctrine provides that “a court is

generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court,

or a higher court in the identical case.” United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir.

1998), quoting United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation

and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff’s objection is solely predicated on the court having found that plaintiff

was barred by the three-strikes provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and having revoked his in

forma pauperis status. Plaintiff essentially maintains that he should be allowed to proceed under

the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception under § 1915(g), but he raises no new

fact or point of law not previously considered; in fact he raises no substantive argument whatever

and his assertion is wholly conclusory and without any substantive basis. Moreover, plaintiff

does not note that the case was dismissed with prejudice on an entirely separate ground, that is,

plaintiff’s repeated failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 29, 2010, “notice

of motion objection” (Docket No. 22), construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b), is denied.

DATED: April 21, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mill3101.60(b)

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2