From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowell v. Kernan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 6, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-02726-MCE-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-02726-MCE-DMC-P

07-06-2020

JAMES BOWELL, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Final judgment was entered on July 19, 2019. See ECF No. 19. Pending before the Court in this closed case is plaintiff's motion to re-open. See ECF No. 20.

In his motion, plaintiff argues that relief is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See ECF No. 20, pg. 1. The Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may also grant reconsideration based if: (1) the judgment is void; (2) the judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought "within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

While plaintiff lists these various grounds for relief in his motion, see ECF No. 20, pg. 5, he does not specify which ground or grounds warrants relief in this particular case. Plaintiff's motion is bereft of any justification for this Court's reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to re-open (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. Dated: July 6, 2020

/s/_________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Bowell v. Kernan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 6, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-02726-MCE-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2020)
Case details for

Bowell v. Kernan

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BOWELL, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 6, 2020

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-02726-MCE-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2020)