Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON LADALE SINEGAL,

CDCR #J-95722,

Civil Case No. 11cv2534 BEN (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)

[ECF Doc. No. 75]

vs.

H. VERDUZCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Ramon Sinegal (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at California State

Prison - Los Angeles County, is proceeding in pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Procedural History

On March 13, 2013, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF Doc. No. 32). Specifically,

the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due

process claims. (Id. at 25.) On August 4, 2014, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56. (ECF Doc. No. 94.) Specifically,

the Court found there was no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment excessive force claims and First Amendment retaliation claims. (Id. at 19.) 

-1- 11cv2534 BEN (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 100 Filed 10/09/14 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

Judgment was entered for all Defendants. (Id.)

On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate Judgment” pursuant

to FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). 

II. Plaintiff’s Objection

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

reconsideration or for filing an ‘objection’ to a district judge’s Order. However, a

motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously decided may be construed as

a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v.

Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co.,

42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final

judgment, order or proceeding”may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usuallymust

be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the

proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted

in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied; or (6) other reason that justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion is somewhat confusing in that he appears to challenge the

Court’s March 11, 2013 Order dismissing his Fourteenth Amendment due process claims

and the Court’s August 4, 2014 Order granting summary judgment. In his Motion,

Plaintiff states “the evidence plaintiff included in the due process claim [was] also the

evidence plaintiff relied on to prove the defendants engaged in a pattern of behavior that

was harassing to plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF Doc. No. 99, at 1-2.) Plaintiff also

maintains that the “Honorable Jan M. Adler ruled that the records regarding Plaintiff’s

complaints made prior to and regarding the incident on January 8, 2011, are clearly

relevant to the claims made by plaintiff in this litigation.” (Id. at 2.)

/ / / 

-2- 11cv2534 BEN (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 100 Filed 10/09/14 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

To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging the March 11, 2013 Order, his motion

is untimely. Rule 60(c)(1) provides, in part, that a motion challenging an order “must

be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons [found in Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (3)]

no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the

proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). Here, the March 11, 2013 Order was entered more

than a year ago and thus, Plaintiff’s challenge to this Order under Rule 60(b) is

untimely.

Plaintiff also argues that the Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ summary judgment

motion was deficient because it failed to address the evidence which he claims the

Magistrate Judge deemed “relevant.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff misstates the meaning

of the ruling. Magistrate Judge Adler found that some of Plaintiff’s discovery requests

were relevant. There was no determination by Magistrate Judge Adler that the

documentation following the order to compel was “relevant.” Whether or not there was

actual discovery produced and used in opposition to the motion is a separate issue. 

Plaintiff fails to specifically identify a piece of evidence provided in his responses to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment which the Court failed to consider.

Regardless, the Court reviewed all evidence provided both in support and in

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion and found that Plaintiff failed to

point to evidence in the record that would raise a triable issue of material fact as to any

of Plaintiff’s claims.

A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is

unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding

precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan

Wright & ArthurR. Miller Federal Practice &Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2013) (citing

Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

-3- 11cv2534 BEN (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 100 Filed 10/09/14 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

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion brought pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60 (ECF No.

99) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

-4- 11cv2534 BEN (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 100 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 4