Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01437-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MILLER, 2:06-cv-1437-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion filed on August 1, 2007, in

which he seeks relief from the judgment entered in this action on July 24, 2007. The court

construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b). 

On July 24, 2007, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s May 25, 2007,

findings and recommendations which concluded that this action should be dismissed, without

leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, the

court agreed with the magistrate judge that the only two named defendants – High Desert State

Case 2:06-cv-01437-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 08/30/07 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

1 Plaintiff had been granted leave to amend on January 19, 2007, after the court

advised plaintiff of the same defect and suggested that plaintiff not name immune defendants in

an amended complaint. 

2

Prison and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – were immune from suit

under the Eleventh Amendment and that this defect was not subject to further amendment.1 In

the instant motion for relief from judgment, plaintiff states that he never received the May 25,

2007, findings and recommendations and, as a result, never had a chance to file objections. 

Plaintiff seeks an opportunity to file objections. 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for relief from judgment. First, the docket

reflects that plaintiff has received other orders from the court. Specifically, plaintiff clearly

received the court’s January 19, 2007, order given that he requested an extension of time to file

an amended complaint. Further, he also must have received the order granting an extension of

time given that plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as directed. Second, no objections from

plaintiff would change the fact that the only defendants named in this action are immune from

suit. Plaintiff was given a chance to cure this defect and failed to do so. Because the dismissal

was not with prejudice, plaintiff is not prejudiced in that he can file a new action which names

defendants who are not immune. 

Plaintiff is referred to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) with

respect to his appeal rights after denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from

judgment under Rule 60(b) is denied. 

Dated: August 30, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01437-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2