Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02820/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02820-0/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

Plaintiff claimed that Defendants (1) denied him access to the

courts by confiscating eighteen envelopes of legal materials, and (2)

retaliated against him for filing numerous lawsuits and grievances

and providing legal assistance to other inmates. The first claim

regarding legal access was resolved in favor of Defendants on oral

motion for judgment as a matter of law made at sidebar on the final

day of trial (doc. # 278). The jury deliberated and found for

Defendants as to the second claim regarding retaliation (doc. # 284).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

THOMAS PIERCE, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-95-2820-PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

TERRY STEWART, et. al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On December 15, 1995, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court

claiming that Defendants violated his civil rights accorded to him

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. # 1). That action was resolved by

jury verdict in favor of Defendants on April 22, 2002 (doc. #

284).1

 Thereafter, the case was terminated with a judgment entered

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 299 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

for Defendants from which Plaintiff did not appeal (doc. ## 290-

291). Now, more than three years later, Plaintiff has filed a

Motion for Order to Show Cause (doc. # 295), a Motion to Compel

captioned as an "Open Letter to the Court" (doc. # 296), and a

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (doc. # 297).

Because Plaintiff submitted his motions after entry of

judgment, the Court must treat them either as motions to

alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or as motions for relief from

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

Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am.

Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Due to the passage of more than three years since

judgment was entered, Plaintiff’s motions could not possibly

be considered under Rule 59(e), which has a ten-day limit. 

His motion is also untimely under Rule 60(b). Motions

under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (3) must be made at the latest

within one year after entry of judgment, which has already

lapsed in this case. Motions under Rule 60(b)(4), (5) and

(6) must be made within a “reasonable time," which is

determined based on the facts of each case. See United

States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1985). In

consideration of the interest in finality, the prejudice to

Defendants of disturbing the judgment based on the jury's

verdict, and the absence of exceptional circumstances, the

Court finds that more than three years of delay is not, in

this case, a reasonable time for purposes of Rule 60(b).

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 299 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

More importantly, Plaintiff's motions do not raise any

grounds that would warrant relief from judgment under either

rule. Instead, his allegations pertain solely to new factual

developments arising long after the events in suit. In

particular, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that on or after

June 3, 2005, when he was transferred from the Eyman Complex

to the Florence Complex, officials of the Arizona Department

of Corrections at the latter location have (1) retaliated

against him for his history of filing grievances and

lawsuits, and assisting other inmates with the same, and (2)

denied him access to the courts by limiting his access to the

law library and confiscating legal files. Mot. to Compel

(doc. # 296) at 2-14. Although bearing a faint resemblance

to the factual predicate of the claims already litigated and

resolved in this case, these allegations only describe new

events involving new parties. Moreover, they fail to

establish any basis for granting relief from judgment under

Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Accordingly, the motions will be

denied.

Plaintiff apparently did not realize that new factual

allegations are properly brought in a separate lawsuit and

not in a lawsuit that has been resolved years ago. Should

Plaintiff decide to file a new lawsuit, he must use the

court-approved form that is required by Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 3.4(a). To assist him, the Court will direct the

Clerk of Court to send him a form for filing a civil rights

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 299 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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

 It should be noted that, in circumstances set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), a court may not authorize a prisoner to proceed in

forma pauperis with the commencement of a new civil action. Section

1915(g) provides as follows:

In no even shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under [section 1915 to

proceed in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless

the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, where 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) applies

to preclude proceeding in forma pauperis, the prisoner who wishes

to proceed with a new civil action is responsible for payment of

the full filing fee in order to continue with such action.

- 4 -

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause,

Motion to Compel, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

(doc. ## 295, 296, 297) are DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to

provide Plaintiff a current court-approved form for filing a

civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 299 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 4