Opinion
1:17-cv-00281-NE-SKO (PC)
07-14-2021
GARLAND A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. MAILROOM OFFICIALS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(Doc. Nos. 44, 45)
Plaintiff Garland A. Jones is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this closed civil rights action. This 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 31, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on November 29, 2018. (Doc. No. 23.) On January 9, 2019, the court adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed this action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff appealed this court's order of dismissal. (Doc. No. 26.) On September 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 41.)
On November 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from a final judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. No. 44.) Plaintiff concurrently filed a document he titled “Motion for Writ of Mandate - Relief from Judgment.” (Doc. No. 45.) The court construes it as a second motion for relief from a final judgment or order. (Compare Id. with Doc. No. 44.)
Pursuant to Rule 60, the court may relieve a party from a final judgement or order “for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 230(j), a party seeking reconsideration of an order on a motion must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
Plaintiff does not provide justification for relief based on any of the above-enumerated grounds. Plaintiffs motions, like his complaints (see, e.g., Doc. No. 20) and his objections to the October 31, 2018 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 23), consist primarily of disjointed, generalized conclusions and are devoid of specific factual contentions. More to the point, plaintiff does not provide any new facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not considered by the court upon its adoption of the findings and recommendations. The Ninth Circuit has also considered plaintiffs pleadings and affirmed this court's conclusion that plaintiff “failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.” (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) Plaintiff provides no justifiable reason to reconsider this conclusion.
Accordingly, plaintiffs motions for relief from a final judgment or order (Doc. Nos. 44, 45) are denied. The court will not entertain any further filings in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.