Ajaelo v. Estrada

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIDEOFOR AJAELO, Case No.: 24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP

12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION 13 v. 14 R. ESTRADA, et al., 15

16 Defendants. 17 On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff Jideofor Ajaelo (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 18 filed a notice stating that he never received the Court’s January 9, 2026 Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 18.) The Court construes the notice as a motion for 20 reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting the R&R. (See Doc. No. 17.) For the reasons 21 set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 24 § 1983 and filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 25 1; 2.) On February 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and screened 26 the Complaint pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). (Doc. No. 4.) 27 The Court found the Complaint survived screening as to the First Amendment and Equal 28 Protection claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only and dismissed the remaining 1 claims against the remaining Defendants without prejudice. (Id. at 5–9.) Plaintiff was given 2 the option to either (1) notify the Court of his intent to proceed with his First Amendment 3 and Equal Protection claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only; or (2) file a First 4 Amended Complaint that attempts to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the 5 Court’s screening Order. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was instructed that if he decided to proceed 6 only with his claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo, the Court would issue an 7 Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the summons and Complaint on those 8 Defendants and dismiss the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants. (Id.) 9 On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of his intent to proceed with his Eighth 10 Amendment claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only and to accept dismissal 11 of the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) On 12 March 25, 2025, the Court dismissed all claims against all Defendants in Plaintiff’s 13 Complaint with the exception of the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims against 14 Defendants Estrada and Alonzo as set forth in the Court’s February 24, 2025 Order. (Doc. 15 No. 6.) 16 On January 9, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R granting in part and 17 denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R ordered that any 18 objections be filed no later than January 26, 2026. (Id. at 14.) On February 2, 2026, having 19 not received any objections, the Court adopted the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 17.) 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Where a court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for 22 reconsideration may be based either on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) 23 (motion to alter or amend judgment) or 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See Sch. 24 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 25 Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a district court’s final order on six grounds: 26 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 27 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ; (3) fraud . . . , 28 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is 1 void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 2 prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies 3 relief. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 5 “Rule 60 reconsideration is generally appropriate in three instances: 1) when there 6 has been an intervening change of controlling law, 2) new evidence has come to light, 7 or 3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” United States 8 v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The party moving 9 for relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief. Id. at 1131. 10 They “must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation 11 of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision 12 fails to carry the moving party's burden.” Id. (internal quote marks omitted). 13 Rule 60(b)(1), “grants the power to “correct judgments [or orders] . . . which have 14 issued due to inadvertence or mistake.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 746 (9th Cir. 15 2008) (quoting Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358 U.S. 133, 145 (1958)). 16 Rule 60(b)(6), “the so-called catch-all provision,” “is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable 17 remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 18 circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 19 erroneous judgment.’” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & 20 Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). “A party moving for relief under Rule 21 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that 22 prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.’” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 23 749 (quoting Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is 24 committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & 25 Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff informs the Court that he received the February 6, 2026 Order Adopting the 28 R&R, but claims he never received the January 9, 2026 R&R. (Doc. No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff 1 |} attaches his legal mail log to support his claim that he did not receive the R&R. (Ud. at 3.) 2 || However, from the log, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff never received the R&R. 3 || The log includes ten entries of incoming and outgoing mail between November 14, 2025, 4 ||and December 29, 2025. (/d.) It appears that the log was printed on February 2, 2026, and 5 || states that it is “page 1 of 1.” Ud.) However, nothing on the log indicates what the search 6 || parameters were—i.e. what was the start date and end date for the report? Without knowing 7 || whether the log includes dates for January 2026, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff 8 ||never received the R&R. 9 Plaintiff has not provided evidence demonstrating that he never received the R&R, 10 || thus, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). See Sandoval v. Los 11 || Angeles Cnty. Sheriffs Dep ’t, No. CV-1105874-DDP-VBK, 2016 WL 7191535, at *2 (C.D. 12 || Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (denying a motion for reconsideration where the plaintiff submitted a 13 ||report of lost property as evidence but “the reports d[id] not support [the p]laintiff’s 14 || contention that he lost relevant legal files’?) Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the six 15 |}grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for 16 || reconsideration. 17 || IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. No. 19 || 18.) The Court’s February 17, 2026 Order remains in full effect. Plaintiff may file an 20 |} Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s R&R by no later than 21 || April 3, 2026. (See Doc. No. 17.) 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 23, 2026 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28