(PC) Williams v. O'Hagan et al, No. 2:2008cv01428 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/13/2009 RECOMMENDING that pltfs 3/19/2009 24 motion for relief from judgment be denied. Objections to F&R due within 20 days after being served. (Suttles, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Williams v. O'Hagan et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PATRICK WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:08-cv-1428-FCD-JFM (PC) vs. C.J. O’HAGAN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 6, 2009, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s § 1983 18 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit, declined to exercise 19 supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims contained in plaintiff’s complaint, and 20 dismissed the action. Judgment was entered on the same day. On March 19, 2009, plaintiff filed 21 a document that appears to be a complaint. By order filed May 6, 2009, the court construed the 22 document as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and set a 23 briefing schedule for the motion. On May 27, 2009, defendants filed an opposition to the 24 motion. 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: 2 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; . . . (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 3 4 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” 7 Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annunity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th 8 Cir. 1997). 9 This action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative 10 remedies for his §1983 claims prior to suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).1 In his motion 11 for relief from judgment, plaintiff re-argues the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss for 12 failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but he has presented no evidence that he exhausted 13 administrative remedies prior to suit and any contention that he was not required to so is without 14 merit. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment should be denied. 15 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s March 19, 2009 motion for relief from judgment be denied. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 19 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 1 26 The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, if any, contained in plaintiff’s complaint. 2 1 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: October 13, 2009. 4 5 6 7 8 12 will1428.mrj 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.