Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08060/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08060-4/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jessie Lewis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Director Charles Lee Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8060-PCT-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

I. Background

In a July 14, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court

dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend, finding that further

opportunities to amend would be futile. The Clerk of Court entered Judgment on July 14,

2010.

On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order”

(Doc. 13), pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. Discussion

It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion. Casey v.

Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). On “just terms,” a court may relieve

a party from a final judgment because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect” or because of “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6).

Rule 60(b)(6) only applies in “extraordinary circumstances” and “has been used sparingly

Case 3:10-cv-08060-MHM--DKD Document 14 Filed 08/16/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land &

Reservation Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff asserts that his Complaint and Amended Complaints were submitted with

“mistakes, inadvertently and with excusable neglect.” He contends that he has contacted “a

legal advocate service, which can facilitate the Court[’s] need for a moving document

allowing a claim to be stated.” Plaintiff states that he will provide a claim that Defendant

Ryan placed a substantial burden on the practice of Plaintiff’s religion and that there was no

compelling governmental interest to restrict Plaintiff’s religious practice. Plaintiff contends

that he will assert that the Arizona Department of Corrections changed its policy to exclude

religious groups from receiving disbursements from inmate retention funds.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the Court’s July 14th

Order, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or that extraordinary

circumstances exist that would justify relief. Thus, the Court, in its discretion, will deny

Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order

(Doc. 13) is denied. This case must remain closed.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08060-MHM--DKD Document 14 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2