Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01052/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01052-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN, No. CIV.S-05-1052 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF YOLO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed May 27, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was

dismissed and twenty days leave to amend was granted. The twenty day

period expired, and plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint or

otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, by findings

and recommendations filed July 5, 2005, the undersigned recommended

that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 04/26/06 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

2

written objections to those findings and recommendations, but by order

filed November 5, 2005, the assigned district judge adopted them in

full and dismissed this case. Judgment was entered in accordance with

that order on the same day.

On January 4, 2006, plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint

and Suit for Unreasonable Seizure and Invidious Discrimination Damages

and Motion to Re-open Action with Leave for Late Filing.” Plaintiff

filed a “revised version” of that document on March 20, 2006. On its

face, plaintiff’s request is an inappropriate motion filed in a closed

case. Nonetheless, the undersigned has construed plaintiff’s request

as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6), which allows the court to relieve a party from a

judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of

judgment.”

Relief is warranted under Rule 60(b)(6) only if

extraordinary circumstances exist. Ackermann v. United States, 340

U.S. 193, 199-201 (1950); Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th

Cir. 1995). Here, plaintiff seeks to be relieved from judgment due to

“hardship” and “delay” resulting from his current incarceration at the

Yolo County Detention Center. In this regard, plaintiff claims on

one-hand “a shortage of the limited pro per materials for suit,” yet

also asserts that his incarceration has necessitated the filing of “8

petitions for habeas relief.” Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the

existence of extraordinary circumstances entitling him to relief under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Therefore, the undersigned will recommend

the district court exercise its discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 04/26/06 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

3

to reopen. See Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1989);

Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir.

1986); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 678 F. Supp. 1456, 1458 (E.D. Cal. 1988).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Rule

60(b)(6) motion (Doc. nos. 10 & 11) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: April 25, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1/orders.prose/sherman1052.f&r.judgment

Case 2:05-cv-01052-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 3