Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834-11/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

LAFAYETTE CADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZAN HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-05-0834-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE

RELIEVED FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT

(Document #26)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed his action in pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

On January 17, 2006, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to

state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty days. On February 27, 2006, the court gave

Plaintiff additional time in which to file an amended complaint. When Plaintiff did not file an

amended complaint within the time ordered, on April 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge entered

Findings and Recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed with prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and comply with the court’s orders. The court did not recieve

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On May 30, 2006, the court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations and dismissed this action with prejudice.

On June 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to be relieved from final judgment. Plaintiff

contends that he attempted to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations, but the

United States Postal Service returned the objections for insufficient postage. On June 2, 2006,

Plaintiff filed his objections.

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 07/07/06 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

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final

order or judgment based on specific grounds, such as: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied

or discharged judgment; or (6) “extraordinary circumstances” which would justify relief. School

Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). The Ninth th

Circuit has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the

preceding clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338

(9 Cir. 1986) (quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981)). th th

Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

Plaintiff asks that the court to relieve him from final judgment because the court did not

consider Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff provides evidence that the objections he mailed to the 

court on approximately April 19, 2006, were returned to him for insufficient postage. While the

failure to provide sufficient postage most likely does not meet Rule 60(b)(6)’s residual clause,

given Plaintiff’s incarcerated and pro se status, it may satisfy Rule 60(b)(1)’s allowance for relief

based on inadvertence or excusable neglect. However, while the court will consider Plaintiff’s

late objections based on the evidence that there was inadvertently improper postage on the

envelope, the court will only reconsider its dismissal order and re-open this case if the court

would have declined to adopt the Findings and Recommendations had the court timely received

them. 

Plaintiff’s contention in his objections is that the court has no power to sua sponte

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff contends that once a complaint

is filed and the filing fee paid, or in Plaintiff’s case in forma pauperis status granted, the court

must serve the complaint and cannot dismiss the complaint absent a responsive pleading. 

Plaintiff’s position is directly contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 07/07/06 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

court is required to dismiss a complaint if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

In addition, whether Plaintiff pays the filing fee or is granted in forma pauperis status, the court

must dismiss a case brought by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer or employee

of a governmental entity at any time if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff cites no authority that these statute have been rescinded

by Congress or invalidated by any court, and these statutes remain binding law on this court. 

Plaintiff’s contention that this court could not order his complaint dismissed with leave to amend

prior to service is simply incorrect. As such, Plaintiff has shown no reason why had the court

timely received and reviewed his objections, the court would not have adopted the Findings and

Recommendations. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from this court’s final order

dismissing this action.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to

be relieved from final judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3