Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH J. PETILLO

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00908-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REOPEN CASE AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO OPEN NEW CASE 

WITH FILING FEE

 (Doc. No. 22)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo filed this action on July 3, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 9, 2019, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending 

that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 

and plaintiff be directed to pay the filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 5.) 

On September 16, 2019, the findings and recommendations were adopted in full and 

plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 8.)

On January 22, 2020, the action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing 

fee and judgment was entered. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17.) 

On July 27, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 18.) On March 

24, 2021, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. (Doc. No. 21.)

On June 28, 2021, plaintiff submitted the filing fee for this action and filed a request to 

continue with this case. (Doc. No. 22.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 2 Filed 09/20/21 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

Although plaintiff does not state a rule of procedure, liberally construed, the Court will 

treat the motion as a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding 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)(1)-(6). A motion under subsections (1), (2), and (3) must be filed within 

one year; motions made under the other subsections must be filed “within a reasonable time.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), the court has the power to reopen a 

judgment even after one year. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 

507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). Subsections (1) through (3) are mutually exclusive of subsection (6), 

and thus a party asserting “excusable neglect” may not seek relief more than a year after the 

judgment by relying on subsection (6). Id. (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 

486 U.S. 847, 863 n.11 (1988)). 

In this case plaintiff filed his motion to reopen over a year after the order directing the 

clerk of court to close the case. Plaintiff offers no reason for the lengthy delay. The case was 

dismissed because plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee after determining he suffered three or more 

strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (Doc. No. 16.) Although the dismissal was without 

prejudice, such dismissal permitted plaintiff to refile the action with the applicable filing fee and 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 2 Filed 09/20/21 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

not reopen the instant case. Plaintiff has failed to identify which subsection of Rule 60(b) or any 

other rule he relies on for relief from the order of dismissal. Nonetheless, given that plaintiff has 

now paid the filing fee in full, the court will direct the clerk of court to open a new action with the 

filing fee and complaint filed in this action. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion to reopen the instant 

action shall be denied. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the instant case (Doc. No. 22) is denied; and

2. Pursuant to Local Rule 123(d), the clerk of court is directed to open a new prisoner 

civil rights action assigned to NONE-SAB (PC), along with the complaint and 

filing fee paid in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 2 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 3