Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00436-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL EFB P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment entered September 29, 2006.

Federal rule governs granting relief from judgment:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order

or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to

move for a new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore

denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior

judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise

vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief

from the operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff asserts no legal or factual basis for granting relief from the 

judgment. Plaintiff may be of the view that the court was mistaken in asserting in a footnote that

he failed to serve defendants with his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. But this

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 84 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

was not the basis of the court’s ruling. The court found that evidence of a disagreement among

medical personnel as to the appropriate treatment was insufficient to support plaintiff’s burden of

demonstrating deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The motion for

reconsideration fails to show any reason why this ruling should be set aside.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s October 16, 2006, motion is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: 12/12/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 84 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2