Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02257/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02257-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER, No. CIV-S-01-2257 MCE/PAN P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

C. VILLASENOR,

Defendant.

_________________________/

On April 6, 2005, plaintiff moved to vacate the March 3,

2005 judgment. The court construes this as a motion to amend

judgment and for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

59(e) and 60.

Rule 59(e) amendment is appropriate if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence,

(2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening

change in controlling law. . . . . To justify an

amendment, [the moving party] must also show that the

evidence was discovered after the judgment, that the

evidence could not be discovered earlier through due

diligence, and that the newly discovered evidence is of

such a magnitude that had the court known of it

earlier, the outcome would likely have been different. 

Case 2:01-cv-02257-MCE -PAN Document 75 Filed 04/28/05 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

2

Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Rule 60 provides:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court

may relieve a party or party’s legal representative

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;

(3) fraud; ... or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment.

Plaintiff fails to establish that relief is warranted under

either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. In addition, plaintiff’s request

for relief under Rule 59 is untimely.

Plaintiff’s April 6, 2005 motion to amend judgment,

construed as a motion to amend judgment and for relief from

judgment, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 27, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-02257-MCE -PAN Document 75 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2