(PC) Miles v. Garland et al, No. 2:2019cv01881 - Document 84 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/24/2023 DENYING plaintiff's 83 motion for transcripts as moot since there were no court hearings conducted in this case to transcribe, and RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 73 motion to reopen his case be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(PC) Miles v. Garland et al Doc. 84 Case 2:19-cv-01881-MCE-CKD Document 84 Filed 01/24/23 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE MILES, SR., 12 No. 2:19-cv-01881-MCE-CKD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER AND DANIEL GARLAND, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court 19 by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Factual and Procedural History 21 By order dated December 8, 2021, the court dismissed this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. ECF No. 68. 23 Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No. 69. Over six months later, on July 13, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen his case. 1 ECF 24 25 No. 73. The undersigned issued an order on August 12, 2022 denying plaintiff’s motion. ECF 26 No. 74. 27 28 1 The filing date of plaintiff’s pleadings are calculated using the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-01881-MCE-CKD Document 84 Filed 01/24/23 Page 2 of 3 1 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 5, 2022 seeking to reopen his case in order to 2 have it heard on the merits. ECF No. 76. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal vacated this court’s 3 post-judgment order denying plaintiff’s motion to re-open because not all the parties consented to 4 the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. ECF No. 81 (citing Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 5 (9th Cir. 2017)). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit remand, this case was reopened for further 6 proceedings. 7 II. 8 In his motion, plaintiff focuses on his 2011 criminal prosecution in Los Angeles County. 9 Post Judgment Motion ECF No. 73. Plaintiff contends that he was falsely charged and convicted based on the use of 10 perjured testimony and false evidence. ECF No. 73. The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a 11 Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment in this case. ECF No. 73. 12 III. 13 A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 14 or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th 15 Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 16 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 17 if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Legal Standards 18 The legal grounds for setting aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) include “mistake, 19 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A judgment may also be set aside if it is void or has been satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 60(b)(4),(5). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made “with a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), 22 (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 23 IV. 24 Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not be 25 dismissed based on his failure to prosecute this case. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de 26 novo review of this case, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) should be 27 denied. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and finds that it does not establish any mistake, 28 newly discovered evidence, or fraud that relates to this civil rights action. This case concerned Analysis 2 Case 2:19-cv-01881-MCE-CKD Document 84 Filed 01/24/23 Page 3 of 3 1 Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against six correctional officers at California State 2 Prison-Sacramento. ECF No. 43. Events related to plaintiff’s 2011 criminal prosecution and 3 conviction are not relevant to this civil rights action. Therefore, plaintiff has not met his burden 4 of establishing the availability of Rule 60(b) relief. 5 6 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for transcripts (ECF No. 83) is denied as moot since there were no court hearings conducted in this case to transcribe. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case (ECF No. 73) be denied. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Dated: January 24, 2023 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12/mile1881.60(b).docx 27 28 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.