Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00040/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00040-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert J. Ellis
Plaintiff
D. L. Runnels
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT J. ELLIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0040 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 16, 2007, the court found that plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 amended

complaint did not state a claim for relief and dismissed this action. The Clerk of the Court duly

entered judgment. Plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Objections to the Dismissal of Civil

Complaint,” which the court construes as a request for relief from judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based

has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the

judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment.

Case 2:06-cv-00040-FCD-EFB Document 26 Filed 07/16/07 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

2

Plaintiff asserts that on April 8, 2007, he submitted to the court an “order to state claim,”

which this court never received. He asserts that he submitted this document again with his

request for relief from judgment. The court has not received such a document, and plaintiff does

not shed any light on the substance of the document. Plaintiff does not demonstrate he is entitled

to relief from judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s May 30, 2007, request is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: July 13, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00040-FCD-EFB Document 26 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 2