Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-17/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

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 60)

Dale Dustin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

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

commencing this action on June 25, 2014. (ECF No. 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. On October 

14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, 

recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 50). The Court adopted those findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 56). On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 60), which is now before the Court.

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 61 Filed 12/09/16 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative 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 (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Plaintiff has failed to show that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for granting 

relief from the order adopting Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean’s findings and 

recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates arguments he has already made, and submits 

evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant. As to the evidence regarding Plaintiff’s bad eyesight, 

even if Plaintiff’s bad eyesight did excuse his nearly illegible hand writing, it does not excuse the 

fact that Plaintiff failed to obey the 25 page limit for his first amended complaint that is laid out in

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin’s1order (ECF No. 19). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin was the presiding magistrate judge on this case until October 13, 2015. 

(ECF No. 29).

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 61 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2