Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06147/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06147-0/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

DINA ELYSE DUVALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CCWF, CDC, Does 1-100,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-cv-06147 OWW SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(DOCS. 34, 35)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Dina Elyse Duvall (“Plaintiff”) moves for

reconsideration of the district court’s order adopting in full

the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations recommending

that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be

denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 29,

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2004, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) and a

motion titled “Motion for Speedy Removal” (Doc. 31). The “Motion

for Speedy Removal” was construed as a motion for a preliminary

injunction requesting that Plaintiff be speedily removed from the

California Central Facility for Women (CCWF) because her presence

there is “harmful to her health” and “may cause her further

harm.” The magistrate judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

on December 20, 2004, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be

denied. (Doc. 32) Plaintiff was given thirty days after being

served to file written objections with the court. (Id. at 3) 

All parties, including Plaintiff, were warned that “failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the Order of the District Court.” (Id. (citing Martinez

v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)) No objections were

filed.

On February 3, 2005, after a de novo review of the case, the

district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations in full. (Doc. 33, Order) It is this order that

it subject of this motion for reconsideration. On February 25,

2005, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for

Reinstatement Under Federal USCA 1983.” (Doc. 34, “Motion for

Reconsideration”) In this motion, Plaintiff argues that the

district court should reconsider its order on the basis that the

court never received her brief even though she had “mailed it off

in a timely manner.” (Id. at 1) On March 7, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a document titled “Request Respond from Postal Service as

Evidence.” (Doc. 35) Attached to this request is a copy of a

letter Plaintiff received from the postmaster at the Chowchilla

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 4
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

post office in response to Plaintiff’s request regarding her

brief, which she had sent by certified mail. Documents 34 and 35

are together construed as a motion for reconsideration under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and are the subject of this

memorandum decision and order.

III. ANALYSIS

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) permits reconsideration of a judgment

or order of the district court on grounds of: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence that supports grounds for a new trial under

Rule 59; (3) fraud of an adverse party; (4) judgment is void;

(5) judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment. Clause 60(b)(6) “is reserved for extraordinary

circumstances.” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser

Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). Motions for relief from judgment or

order under Rule 60(b) are committed to the discretion of the

trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc).

Plaintiff attaches to her Motion for Reconsideration a copy

of her “Motion for Speedy Removal” (i.e., Doc. 32). Plaintiff

states that she sent this brief to the court via certified mail

on November 24, 2004, and attaches a copy of a certified mail

receipt in support. Plaintiff argues that the court should

reconsider its motion because it did not receive her brief. 

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

However, the court did receive her brief. The “Motion for Speedy

Removal” was filed electronically on November 29, 2004, five days

after Plaintiff claims to have mailed it to the court. It is the

very brief that was considered by the magistrate judge and later

by the district court. Plaintiff does not assert that she filed

a brief other than her Motion for Speedy Removal (Doc. 32), or

that she timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff offers no basis for Rule

60(b) reconsideration. 

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration (Docs. 33, 34) is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August _24__, 2005. 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 4