Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01393-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL O. STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01393-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Darryl O. Strickland (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was rendered and this

action was closed on December 4, 2007 due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. On May 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this action.

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed by the Court on June 27, 2007. (Doc. #9.) Plaintiff’s

complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was given 30 days to file an amended

complaint. No amended complaint was filed and on November 5, 2007, the Court issued a findings

and recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc.

#10.) Plaintiff was given 30 days to file objections to the findings and recommendation. The Court

adopted the findings and recommendation on December 4, 2007, and this action was closed. (Doc.

#11.)

Plaintiff now requests that the Court reopen this action. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(1)-(3), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding in

circumstances that involve mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered

1

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 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

evidence, or fraud. Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from final judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies

relief.” However, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is warranted only if extraordinary circumstances exist. 

Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254-55 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Ackermann v. United States, 340

U.S. 193, 199-201 (1950); Waggoner v. R. McGray, Inc., 743 F.2d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 1984)).

Plaintiff’s motion was filed over 17 months after final judgment was rendered. Any motion

for relieffrom final judgment based on Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable

neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud) must be made “no more than a year after the entry of

the judgment. . . .” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1). Plaintiff’s motion is untimely for any

relief under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3). There is no definite time limit for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) (“any

other reason that justifies relief”). However, a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must still be made within

a reasonable time, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), and Plaintiff must demonstrate the

existence of extraordinary circumstances to obtain relief.

Plaintiff’s justification for seeking relief from the dismissal of this action is that he was

detained in the Los Angeles County Jail and did not receive the Court’s November 5, 2007 findings

and recommendation. Plaintiff argues that because he did not receive the findings and

recommendation, he did not know that he could have filed objections. However, the Court notes that

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed on June 27, 2007 and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

complaint if he wished to pursue this action. In the order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff

was specificallywarned that the failure to file an amended complaint within the 30 day deadline may

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Plaintiff does not allege that he did not receive the June 27, 2007 order. Plaintiff provides

no explanation as to why he made no attempt to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended

complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was over threemonths late when the Court

issued the findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was over four months late

when the Court adopted the findings and recommendation. This case remained closed and Plaintiff

made no effort to contact the Court for nearly two years before Plaintiff filed the pending motion to

reopen. Plaintiff has provide no explanation as to what extraordinarycircumstances exist that would

justify reopening this action after Plaintiff made no effort to comply with the Court’s June 27, 2007

2

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 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

order for nearly two years. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or circumstances that his

motion, filed more than 17 months after judgment was rendered in this case, was made within a

reasonable time.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen, filed on May 13,

2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 14 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3