Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00989-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON 

PERSONNEL,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO VACATE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

60(b)(6)

(Doc. No. 23)

Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 6, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee 

in full in order to proceed with this civil action. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within thirty (30) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 

Plaintiff timely filed objections on November 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 17.)

On December 1, 2019, the previously assigned district judge issued an order adopting the 

November 6, 2019 findings and recommendations in full, denying plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis, and ordering plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within 

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 4
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

twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the order. (Doc. No. 18.) The court’s December 

1, 2019 order also warned plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing fee within the specified time, 

this action would be dismissed. (Id. at 3.)

However, on December 27, 2019, rather than pay the $400.00 filing fee in full, plaintiff 

filed “objections” to the December 1, 2019 order. (Doc. No. 19.) Additionally, on December 30, 

2019, plaintiff filed an “addendum to opposition” to the court’s December 1, 2019 order. (Doc. 

No. 20.) 

On January 4, 2020, the court construed plaintiff’s “objections” and “addendum to 

opposition” as a motion for reconsideration, denied that motion for reconsideration, and 

dismissed this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 

December 1, 2019 order and plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 21.) 

Accordingly, judgment was entered against plaintiff on January 6, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.)

On February 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. No. 23.) Rule 60(b)(6) permits the court to relieve a 

party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as 

an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 

circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must demonstrate 

both injury and circumstances beyond [their] control[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires that, when a party makes a motion for 

reconsideration, the party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 

exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and 

“why the facts and circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 4
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

disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments 

considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s 

burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In this case, plaintiff contends that the judgment in this case should be vacated and the 

January 6, 2020 order dismissing this action, without prejudice, should be reconsidered for two 

reasons. First, plaintiff argues that the previously assigned district judge, Lawrence J. O’Neill, is 

biased against him and should have recused himself from this action. Requests to disqualify or 

recuse a district judge are governed by two statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 

requires disqualification or recusal of a district judge “[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a 

district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the 

matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]” 

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1) require a district judge to disqualify or recuse himself “in 

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned[,]” including “[w]here 

he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party[.]” 

Here, plaintiff states that Judge O’Neill should have been disqualified or recused from this 

action based upon his prejudicial statements and attitude towards plaintiff as exhibited in prior 

rulings in this case. However, under §§ 144 and 455(a) and (b)(1), “judicial rulings alone almost 

never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion[]” because judicial rulings do not rely 

on an extrajudicial source and “can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of 

favoritism or antagonism required ... when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Liteky v. United 

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Further, “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts 

introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, 

do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated 

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. Here, plaintiff has not 

demonstrated that Judge O’Neill harbored any “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would 

make fair judgment impossible.” Id. Because plaintiff has failed to establish that “a reasonable 

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

reasonably be questioned[,]” plaintiff’s request to disqualify or recuse Judge O’Neill and to 

reconsider and set aside the orders that Judge O’Neill made in this case must be denied. United 

States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Second, plaintiff argues that that the judgment entered in this action should be vacated and 

the January 6, 2020 order dismissing this action without prejudice should be reconsidered because 

he is indigent and was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this 

action. However, plaintiff has not presented the court with any newly discovered evidence, 

demonstrated that the court committed clear error, or established that there has been an 

intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn, 571 F.3d at 880. Instead, plaintiff’s motion 

merely reiterates the same arguments previously presented to, and considered by, the court. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, 

plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate the judgment must be denied.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), (Doc. No. 23), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 4