(PC) Benyamini v. Johnson et al, No. 1:2007cv00907 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Objections, Construed as a Request for Relief from Final Judgment 39 ; ORDER Denying Motion to File Amended Complaint 40 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/9/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Benyamini v. Johnson et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT P. BENYAMINI, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00907-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS, CONSTRUED AS REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT (DOC. 39) v. L. JOHNSON, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT (DOC. 40) Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Robert P. Benyamini (“Plaintiff”) is in the custody of the California Department 16 of Corrections and Rehabilitation. This action was dismissed on July 27, 2010, for Plaintiff’s 17 failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff had been ordered to submit service documents, but failed 18 to do so. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections, filed August 5, 2010. (Doc. 39.) 19 The Court construes these objections as a motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 21 A court may relieve a party from a final judgment for, inter alia, mistake, inadvertence, 22 surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff contends that he 23 submitted the service documents on June 7, 2010 for mailing to the Court. (Pl.’s Obj. ¶ 1.) 24 Plaintiff also contends that he submitted objections to the Court’s Findings and 25 Recommendations on July 11, 2010, in which he stated that he submitted the service documents 26 on June 7, 2010. (Id. ¶ 2.) 27 28 The Court did not receive the service documents until August 3, 2010. (Doc. 41, Lodged Documents, 7 USM-285 forms, one summons.) There is no record of Plaintiff’s objections that 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 were allegedly sent on July 11, 2010. While Plaintiff seeks relief from final judgment, Plaintiff 2 does not provide a sufficient showing that he complied with the Court’s previous orders. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections, filed August 5, 2010 and construed as a motion for relief 4 from final judgment, are DENIED. 5 On August 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 6 Because this action is closed and Plaintiff has provided an insufficient showing that the case 7 should be reopened, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 September 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
