Francisco Merino v. Vivian Vuong, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Francisco Merino, No. 2:21-cv-00826-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Vivian Vuong, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Francisco Merino, who is incarcerated, filed this civil rights action in 2021. ECF 18 | No. 1. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge under the Local Rules of this District. The 19 | Magistrate Judge granted Merino’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his 20 | complaint, as required by the relevant statute. ECF Nos. 6, 15. The Magistrate Judge dismissed 21 | the original complaint for failure to state a claim, but with leave to amend, and ultimately 22 | permitted Merino to amend his complaint three times. ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30. The 23 | Magistrate Judge then recommended dismissing the action for failure to state a claim, and this 24 | court adopted that recommendation in 2022. See Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 32, 25 | adopted, ECF No. 56. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 2024. ECF Nos. 69, 72. 26 On September 29, 2025, Merino filed a letter arguing defendants were improperly excused 27 | from their obligation to answer his allegations and to comply with the law. ECF No. 76. The 28 | court construes his letter as a request for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

1 | Procedure 60(b) and denies the request. See Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2 | 2007) (discussing circumstances when relief is available under Rule 60(b)); Am. Ironworks & 3 | Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining when post- 4 | judgment motions are treated as Rule 60(b) motions). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | DATED: October 15, 2025. oUt 7 = | ¥ FU/ Fees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE