Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

THEODORE MICHAEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6227 LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE

FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b).

(Doc. 95.) 

 Theodore Michael (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties

have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On February 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 59.) The

Motion was denied by this Court on August 2, 2005. (Doc. 87.) Defendants filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment on February 18, 2005, and an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment on March 10, 2005. (Docs. 66, 77.) On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Reply to

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) Plaintiff filed

his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on May 18, 2005. The Court

issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on August 2, 2005. 

Judgment was entered on August 22, 2005. 

On June 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to reopen the time for filing an appeal on the

basis that Plaintiff did not receive timely notice of the entry of judgment. The Court denied this

request on June 13, 2006. 

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 96 Filed 07/24/06 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

27

28

2

On July 17, 2006, Plaintiff submitted the instant Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The rule permits the Court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: (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 ... of an adverse party, ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from

the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for

reasons (1), (2), and (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was

entered or taken. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of

the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.1987). To succeed in

a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). 

Similarly, Local Rule 78-230(k) provides that a motion for reconsideration set forth “new

or different facts that are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

motion.” 

In this case, Plaintiff requests that the Court set aside judgment and then re-enter

judgment to allow for Plaintiff to “file a timely notice of appeal.” (Motion at 1.) The basis of

Plaintiff’s Motion, however, fails to meet any of the requirements under Rule 60(b) for setting

aside judgment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for relief from judgment filed July 17, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 96 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2