Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05229/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05229-2/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

JUAN RADILLO, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FUJIOKA, et al,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-CV-5229-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Documents #42 & #43)

Plaintiff Juan Radillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contended that Defendants violated his First

Amendment rights by denying him a catalog. The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendations granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. When no objections

were filed, the court adopted the Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff then filed a motion

for reconsideration and objections. Plaintiff requests that the court consider his objections.

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

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff contends that he did not receive a timely copy of the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations because he was temporarily housed at a

different facility. Based on Plaintiff’s stated reason for filing late objections, the court will

review the objections and determine if they set forth any grounds to reconsider the court’s order

Case 1:04-cv-05229-AWI -DLB Document 44 Filed 08/01/07 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

granting Defendant summary judgment.

The objections contend that the Magistrate Judge ignored two cases when finding

Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. In Allen v. Higgins, 902 F.2d 682 (8 Cir. th

1990), the Eighth Circuit found that a blanket rule banning catalogs without prison officials

examining the catalogs violated clearly established law. Id. 684. While Allen seems to support

Plaintiff’s position, it is an Eighth Circuit case. This court lies within the Ninth Circuit. As late

as 2005, the Ninth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity when

enforcing catalog restrictions. Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9 Cir. 2005). th

Because the actions underlying this case occurred in 2003, the court is compelled to follow

Prison Legal News, and find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff also contends that the case of “In re Guzman, No. 01 W0067A” clearly put

Defendants on notice that their actions were unlawful. The cite Plaintiff has provided is not a

proper case cite. The court was able to find three cases entitled “In re Guzman,” but all were

bankruptcy cases and had nothing to do with issues relevant to this action. See In re Guzman, 27

Fed.Appx. 789, 2001 WL 1398470 (9 Cir. 2001), In re Guzman, 345 B.R. 640 (Bankr.E.D.Wis. th

2006); In re Guzman, 130 B.R. 489 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Tex.1991). Regardless, this court is bound by

Prison Legal News. Thus, even if the court had considered the objections before adopting the

Findings and Recommendations, the court would have reached the same conclusion. 

 According, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05229-AWI -DLB Document 44 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2