Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01155-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE T. MOTEN, CASE NO. CV-F-06-1155 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO VACATE JUDGMENT

vs.

(Doc. 20, 22)

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was dismissed on February 7, 2007, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. On February 20,

2007 and May 15, 2007, plaintiff filed motions seeking to set aside the judgment. Plaintiff argues he

should be excused from the exhaustion requirement because prison officials interfered with his attempts

to utilize the administrative process and his appeals were not answered in a timely manner. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final

order or judgment for “any . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The motion

for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after

the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 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);

Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts

Case 1:06-cv-01155-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/17/07 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

or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., KernTulare 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). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[c]lause

60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils

et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United

States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary

circumstances.’” Id.

This action was dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

which provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. §

1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Section 1997e(a) requires that

prisoners exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff filed this action in August 2006. To the extent the inmate appeal attached to plaintiff’s

objections to the Findings and Recommendations satisfies the exhaustion requirement, a decision was

not rendered at the third and final level of appeal until October 27, 2006. Accordingly, this appeal was

not exhausted prior to filing suit. Even if plaintiff has now exhausted, this is not grounds upon which

to set aside judgment and re-open this action. Plaintiff’s decision to file suit before exhausting, is fatal

to the instant action. Plaintiff’s sole remedy, if he wishes to pursue the claims he exhausted, is to file

a new action. Further, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence his appeals were interfered with,

intercepted or discarded. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to set aside judgment and re-open this action, filed February 20,

2007 and May 15, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01155-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2