Juan Carlos Calderon v. Rob Bonta, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00212
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-00212-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROB BONTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Juan Carlos Calderon (“Plaintiff”) proceeds without counsel in this action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Then-Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller dismissed the case on 19 March 26, 2024. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) Nearly two years later, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider 20 this ruling. (ECF No. 34.) 21 A motion seeking relief from a judgment is governed by either Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), depending on when the motion is filed. Cent. Produce El Jibarito v. 23 Luna Commer. Corp., 880 F. Supp. 2d 282, 285 (D.P.R. 2012). If the motion is filed within 28 24 days of entry of judgment, Rule 59(e) governs; otherwise, Rule 60(b) governs. Id.; see also 25 United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 956 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that 26 Rule 59(e) controls if the motion is brought within the time limit provided by Rule 59 (which, 27 since 2009, has been 28 days)). Plaintiff’s motion was not brought within 28 days of entry of 28 judgment. Accordingly, Rule 60(b) controls. 1 Rule 60(b) provides: 2 On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 3 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 4 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 5 satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that 6 justifies relief. 7 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 8 | circumstances, unless the .. . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 9 | error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 10 | Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has not presented a 11 || reason justifying reconsideration. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's February 2, 2026 Motion for 13 | Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively 14 | terminate the additional post-judgment motions filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38.) 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Date: March 19, 2026 17 18 TROY L. NUNLEY 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28