(HC) Littleton v. Sacramento County

Opinion

MICHAEL LITTLETON, No. 2:22-cv-01159-TLN-EFB (HC) Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. On October 31, 2022, the court dismissed this action after petitioner failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s August 11, 2022 order. See ECF No. 15 (directing petitioner to file either a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a civil rights complaint within 30 days). Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 16. On January 12, 2023, petitioner filed a document titled, “Motion to Reopen Case.” ECF No. 17. The court construes the filing as a request for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So construed, the motion must be denied. Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In his motion, petitioner complains of identity theft and a “chip reader in [his] ear.” ECF No. 17. Petitioner’s motion does not address or otherwise meet the Rule 60(b) standards. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment must be denied. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s “Motion to Reopen Case,” construed as motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 17), be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: February 6, 2023. : Ln b; j / 4 Z g “Oh 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE