Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01787/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01787-4/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

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

Plaintiff, Irving Charles Humphrey, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in 

this action on August 5, 2014 ("Humphrey II"). (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's Complaint and issued a Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the action with prejudice as barred by res judicata as Plaintiff 

admitted it was duplicative of and intended to resurrect an action that Plaintiff had previously 

brought which had been dismissed on summary judgment -- Humphrey v. Yates, 1:09-cv-00075-

LJO-DLB ("Humphrey I"). (Doc. 11.) The Findings and Recommendations was served on 

Plaintiff on March 2, 2015 and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed timely objections in 

which he argued that the ruling in the Northern California District Court's rulings in Marciano 

Plata, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. et al, C01-1351 TEH obviated the need for litigation of all 

issues other than damages in Humphrey I and requested that judicial notice be taken of the ruling 

in Plata. (Docs. 12, 13.) The order adopting the Findings and Recommendations which 

dismissed this action, found that this action was barred by res judicata. (Doc. 14.) 

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 16.) On April 27, 2015, the 

IRVING C. HUMPHREY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01787-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 

FOR REVIEW/RECONSIDERATION PER 

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2) & (6)

(Doc. 27)

Case 1:14-cv-01787-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the matter to this Court for the limited purpose of 

determining whether in forma pauperis should continue for this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 

Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). This Court filed a responsive 

order delineating the reasons this action was dismissed and finding that Plaintiff was not entitled 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff was thereafter ordered to pay the 

filing fee for his appeal (Doc. 26) and when he failed to do so, his appeal was dismissed (Doc. 

28). After being ordered to pay the filing fee, on June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief 

from the judgment that had been entered in this action. (Doc. 27.) 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that A[o]n motion and upon 

such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct 

by an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 

judgment.@ Motions under Rule 60(b) "must be made within a reasonable time -- and for reasons 

(1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the 

proceeding." 

Relief under Rule 60 “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) 

(addressing reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate 

both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what 

new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown" previously, "what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or 

circumstances were not shown" at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was 

considered. 

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

Case 1:14-cv-01787-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original).

It is noteworthy that it was not until after the Ninth Circuit ordered him to pay docketing 

and filing feels for his appeal (which he apparently failed to do), that Plaintiff filed the present 

motion (Doc. 27), seeking reconsideration of the order, which issued on April 13, 2015 (Doc. 

14), on which judgment (Doc. 15) was entered against him. In his motion, Plaintiff once again 

asserts that the findings and rulings in Plata v. Brown, et al., C01-1351-TEH provide new 

evidence that supports his claims in his prior suit (Humphrey v. Yates, 1:09-cv-00075-LJO-DLB 

("Humphrey I")) which he attempted to resurrect in this action ("Humphrey II"). The 

inapplicability of new rulings on issues regarding prisoners' exposure to and treatment for Valley 

Fever (of which Plaintiff complains in this action) to resurrect claims that Plaintiff proceeded on 

in Humphrey I have been repeatedly addressed in this action. Plaintiff raises neither evidence 

nor law that has not previously been considered and there is no other basis upon which it would 

be just to relieve him from judgment that has been entered in this action.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 303, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the both the Findings and Recommendation upon which this action was found to be 

barred by res judicata (Doc. 12) and the Order Adopting it (Doc. 14) which resulted in dismissal 

of this action and entry of judgment to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, filed on June 27, 2015 (Doc. 

27), is HEREBY DENIED and any objections based thereon are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01787-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3