Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02592/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02592-2/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEAVON PIERCE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KAMALA HARRIS, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-2592-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil action 

seeking a writ of mandamus. On August 25, 2016, the court summarily dismissed this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 12. Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff 

now seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ECF No. 14. 

Rule 60(b) provides: 

 

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, 

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

Case 2:15-cv-02592-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 10/27/16 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Plaintiff has not shown that the judgment entered against him was the result of excusable 

neglect or fraud, nor has he shown any other reason that would warrant relief from the judgment 

entered herein. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No.14) 

is denied. 

DATED: October 27, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-02592-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 2