Johnson v. Brenneke

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY JOHNSON, Case Nos. 3:21-cv-00582-JR, 3:21-cv- 00685-JR, & 3:21-cv-00871-JR Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS & v. RECOMMENDATION THOMAS BRENNEKE; GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT, LLC; GUARDIAN REAL ESTATE SERVICES; UPTOWN TOWER APARTMENTS; LISA SIMONSON; KELLY PAINE; et al.,1 Defendants. Larry Johnson, Portland, OR 97205. Pro se. IMMERGUT, District Judge. Plaintiff Larry Johnson brought three Fair Housing Act actions against an overlapping list of defendants. This Court entered judgment in favor of all defendants and dismissed these actions with prejudice in August 2022. See Judgment, ECF 118.2 The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Johnson v. Brenneke, No. 23-35542, 2025 WL 521308 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025). 1 Plaintiff names the captioned Defendants in each of the consolidated cases. He additionally names Garrett Lamar Miles and Sunshine Sales as defendants in case no. 3:21-cv- 00582-JR and Kenneth de Groot and Lisa Rudhe in case no. 3:21-cv-00685-JR. 2 All ECF citations are to docket entries in case no. 3:21-cv-00582-JR. Plaintiff now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 seeking leave to amend his pleadings or file an independent action. Motion, ECF 136 at 1. Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) recommending that this motion be denied as untimely under Rule 60(c)(1). ECF 138. Plaintiff filed objections to the F&R. ECF 140. This Court has

reviewed de novo the portion of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s F&R. STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further

review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) requires that a motion for relief from judgment must be made within a “reasonable time.” “What constitutes ‘reasonable time’ depends upon the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties.” Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). “Because the time for appeal had passed in this case, the interest in finality must be given great weight.” Id. Judge Russo’s F&R correctly applies this Rule in denying Plaintiff’s Motion, which seeks to revive a case that was dismissed with prejudice nearly three years ago. ECF 118. Plaintiff’s Objections cite to court orders in other cases he has filed in this District, ECF 140 at 3–4, but he does not provide any explanation of why he delayed filing this motion for nearly

three years. Even construing his objections liberally and affording him the benefit of any doubt, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), Plaintiff offers no compelling reason for reopening this set of three consolidated cases. CONCLUSION This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Russo’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 138, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion, ECF 136.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge