Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281-8/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

KYLE S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 

60(b) MOTION 

(ECF No. 27)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner1proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 5 & 22.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 5) and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) 

were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on August 30, 2013 and December 

2, 2013, respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 7 and 14.) On 

December 30, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and 

recommended dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to cure identified 

deficiencies in his prior complaints and failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 21.) 

On May 21, 2014, the District Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations and 

dismissed the case with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 23 & 24.)

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen case on the ground that he 

had mental disabilities that prevented him from timely meeting the Court’s deadlines. 

 

1

On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, revealing that he is no longer incarcerated. 

(ECF No. 28.)

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 5
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

(ECF No. 25.) That motion was denied on May 4, 2015, after the undersigned explained 

that the reason for the dismissal of this action was not because of a failure to timely 

comply with a court order, but instead because he failed to state a cognizable claim 

despite three opportunities. (ECF No. 26.)

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 16, 2015, Rule 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff now asserts that his mental disabilities prevented him 

from stating a claim. 

II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from 

an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be ‘used sparingly as an 

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances’” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” 

Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 

230(j) requires a party to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 

to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion.” 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), 

and “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 

Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered by the 

court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 

1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 

834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff moves for relief from judgment, stating that his mental disability affected 

his ability to state a claim but that he now has a jailhouse lawyer assisting him. Attached 

to Plaintiff’s motion is a third amended complaint, which the jailhouse lawyer helped 

Plaintiff prepare. 

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. First, it comes 14 months after entry of final 

judgment in this case. Pursuant to Rule 60(c)(1), a motion for relief from judgment “must 

be made within a reasonable time ....” “What constitutes a ‘reasonable time’ depends 

upon the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason 

for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, 

and the prejudice to the opposing parties.” Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th 

Cir. 1981). A party who filed a Rule 60(b) motion after the time for appeal has expired 

must establish “the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or 

rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal.” Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 

1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982).

Reviewing the facts here, the Court finds that a 14-month delay in seeking relief 

from judgment is not a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff 

contends that he is a member of the Clark Program,2and his developmental disability 

prevented him from properly articulating a claim. In support, Plaintiff submits a 

November 26, 2013, progress note indicating that Plaintiff’s mental health designation is 

“DD1.” Pl.’s Mot. Ex. B. “Prisoners classified as DD1 are equivalent to those with ‘mild’ 

mental retardation. [Citation.] Although considered higher functioning, DD1 prisoners still 

require a variety of adaptive supports.” Clark v. California, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1188 

(N.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiff also submits an unsigned letter dated June 2, 2015, stating 

that he has a mental disability affecting his ability to read and respond to “even basic 

correspondences.” Plaintiff purportedly received help from “R. Silverman, Ph.D., 

 

2

The Armstrong and Clark cases are class actions brought against state officials for violation of the ADA, the 

Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution by present and future prisoners and parolees suffering from certain 

disabilities. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2010); Clark v. California, 739 F. Supp.

2d 1168, 1173-74 (N.D. Cal. 2010). These actions are in the remedial stage, and there are remedial plans in place. Id.

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Psychologist” in writing the letter, but it is not clear who Dr. Silverman is and what his or 

her relationship is to Plaintiff, so little weight, if any, can be given to this letter’s content. 

In any event, Plaintiff’s developmental disabilities have been known to him since at least 

the initiation of this action. Under these circumstances, his filing of this motion on these 

grounds 14 months after entry of judgment is unreasonable.

Even if reasonable, Plaintiff has not established the existence of extraordinary 

circumstances justifying relief from judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as 

an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances ...” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.

2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 

demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control .... “ Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Acknowledging that Plaintiff’s mental health designation is 

DD1, he has not shown that this designation, standing alone, is the reason for his

inability to articulate a claim. The November 16, 2013, progress note provides that the 

effect of Plaintiff’s mental deficits on his academic ability is that he reads “very slow[ly]” 

and has “problems with simple math.” Neither of these limitations would appear to affect 

his ability to follow the directives in the Court’s screening orders. It is also unclear how 

Plaintiff’s jailhouse lawyer will be of assistance to him now that Plaintiff has been 

released from prison. 

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from 

judgment (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. There shall be no future filings in this action; 

attempts to file will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 5
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 5

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 29 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 5