Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00724/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00724-9/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

VINCENT BIAGAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0724 LKK EFB P

vs.

CSP-SACRAMENTO, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 13, 2007, the court dismissed this action for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the Clerk of the Court duly

entered judgment. On January 3 and 10, 2008, plaintiff filed motions to file an amended

complaint. The court construes these motions as seeking relief from judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): 

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.

Case 2:07-cv-00724-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 01/28/08 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

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim because he did not identify particular

individuals who allegedly violated his rights and his allegations of the conditions that allegedly

violated his rights were too general. In his requests for relief from judgment, plaintiff identifies

several particular individuals who he would name as defendants. But his allegations still are too

vague to find that he states a claim against them. Thus, plaintiff does not demonstrate he is

entitled to relief from judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s January 3 and 10, 2008, requests are denied. The Clerk of the

Court is directed to terminate numbers 33 and 34 on the docket.

So ordered.

Dated: January 28, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00724-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2