Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00200/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00200-17/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMEKO MALONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. BARKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00200-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

(Doc. 57, 58)

Plaintiff Tomeko Malone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

motion for extension of time. (Doc. #57.) Plaintiff requested that the Court extend the deadline for

filing objections to its February 18, 2009 findings and recommendation recommending that

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time was

filed after the Court had already adopted the findings and recommendation. On April 10, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that the Court vacate its order granting

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #58.)

I. Background

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 11, 2008. (Doc. #34.) Plaintiff

filed an opposition on June 4, 2008. (Doc. #40-42.) Defendant filed a reply on June 11, 2008. (Doc.

#43.) On February 18, 2009, the Court issued a findings and recommendation in response to the

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #49.) The Court found that Defendant met his burden of

demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts show

1

Case 1:06-cv-00200-LJO-WMW Document 61 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 3
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

that Defendant was entitled to judgment in his favor. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to

offer evidence that demonstrated the existence of any material disputed facts. The Court concluded

that the undisputed facts show that Defendant did not act with deliberate indifference and that his

motion for summary judgment should be granted. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was

granted and this action was closed.

Plaintiff was given 30 days to file objections to the findings and recommendation. Plaintiff

was also granted an extension of time, making his objections due on March 28, 2009. On March 30,

2009, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation and noted that Plaintiff had not filed any

objections within the 30 day deadline. The same day, the Plaintiff filed objections to the findings

and recommendation. Plaintiff now seeks an extension of time to render his objections timely filed. 

Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider the disposition of the motion for summary judgment.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff essentially requests that the Court vacate its March 30, 2009 order rendering

judgment in favor of Defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(3), the Court may

relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding in circumstances that involve mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Rule 60(b)(6)

permits relief from final judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” However, relief under

Rule 60(b)(6) is warranted only if extraordinary circumstances exist. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d

252, 254-55 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-201 (1950);

Waggoner v. R. McGray, Inc., 743 F.2d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 1984)).

Plaintiff contends that judgment should be vacated because he was unable to file objections

in time. In his motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff claims he filed his objections in a timely

manner because they were due on March 28, 2009 and by operation of the mailbox rule, his

objections should have been deemed filed on March 26, 2009, the day he mailed his objections. 

However, even assuming that Plaintiff’s objections were filed in a timely manner, the Court will not

relieve Plaintiff from the final judgment rendered in this action unless Plaintiff’s objections would

have affected the Court’s decision to adopt the findings and recommendation. The Court has read

Plaintiff’s objections and finds that it does not. Plaintiff’s objections do not contain any new or

2

Case 1:06-cv-00200-LJO-WMW Document 61 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 3
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

different arguments or facts that were not already presented in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was informed that he may not rely on denials and

allegations to demonstrate the existence of a disputed fact. Plaintiff must provide admissible

evidence to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has failed to present

admissible evidence that reasonably rebuts Defendant’s evidence that demonstrates that he did not

act with deliberate indifference. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections would not have affected the Court’s

ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any facts or circumstances that justify

relief from final judgment under Rule 60. Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s findings and

recommendations that recommended granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment failed to

raise any new facts or arguments that were not already considered by the Court when issuing the

findings and recommendation. Thus, Plaintiff’s demonstration that his objections were timely filed

fail to affect the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed on April 6, 2009, is denied as moot;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 10, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-00200-LJO-WMW Document 61 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3