Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00016-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

MEEKS, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff William J. Whitsitt’s (“Plaintiff”) 

Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 23.) Defendants1did not file an opposition. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

///

///

///

///

1

“Defendants” refers to all fourteen Defendants in this action: Meeks, City of Stockton, 

City of Manteca, San Joaquin County Courts, Plummer, Sara Lizero, San Joaquin County, SJC 

Probation Department, Christian Life Church, Kinney, Nathaniel Haney, Nurse Vistoria, 

Christian Life College and Long. 

Case 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 12/03/24 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

2

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is not necessary for the 

disposition of Plaintiff’s motion. In short, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against 

Defendants, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. (ECF No. 12.) On April 5, 2021, 

the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and ordered its dismissal for 

failure to state a claim and failure to meet the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (ECF No. 4.) On May 14, 2021, the magistrate judge made findings and 

recommendations (“F&Rs”) to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim and failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 6.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which was deemed 

timely filed. (ECF Nos. 12, 14.) On August 12, 2021, in light of the first amended complaint, the 

magistrate judge made new F&Rs recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state 

a claim. (ECF No. 14.) On September 10, 2021, the Court adopted the F&Rs in full and 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. (Id.) 

The clerk of court entered judgment that same day2. (ECF No. 17.) On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 23.)

On motion and just terms, a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment 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.

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

2 On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 18.) 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decision on November 7, 2024. (ECF No. 25.)

Case 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 12/03/24 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

3

In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to relief under Rule 

60(b). Plaintiff makes cursory arguments and merely recites the operative text from various 

subsections of Rule 60(b) without proffering facts that give rise to any indication that relief is 

warranted. (ECF No. 23.) For example, Plaintiff contends he received favorable outcomes in two 

misdemeanor cases and argues the dismissal of those cases “invalidates” his subsequent felony 

charge. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff further argues, in a conclusory fashion, the favorable outcomes 

constitute new evidence such that relief from judgment is warranted. (Id at 3.) Plaintiff, 

however, fails to allege facts regarding how the evidence is related to claims in his civil action. 

(Id. at 3.) To the extent Plaintiff argues the favorable outcomes of two prior cases are grounds to 

withdraw his guilty plea, such an argument needs to be made in his criminal case, not this civil 

action.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 

23.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 2, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3