Mark Hunt v. D. Diaz, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK HUNT, Case No. 1:19-cv-0504 KES SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE 13 v. Doc. 73 14 D. DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Mark Hunt sought to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2021, the Court dismissed this action for failure to 19 prosecute and entered judgment. Docs. 71, 72. Hunt now moves to reopen the case, and the 20 defendants oppose the motion. Docs. 73, 75. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is 21 denied, and the action will remain closed. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On December 6, 2019, the Court ordered this action proceed on Plaintiff’s excessive force 24 claim against Defendants Diaz, Velasquez, Brainard, Solorio, and Reyes. Doc. 22. After the 25 defendants answered the complaint, they filed a motion to stay the action pending the resolution 26 of Hunt’s related criminal prosecution and disciplinary case. Doc. 52. The Court granted the 27 motion and ordered the defendants to file status reports until the conclusion of the state court 28 proceedings. Doc. 61. 1 On September 23, 2021, Defendants reported that Hunt failed to appear for a pretrial 2 conference and a preliminary hearing setting conference that were scheduled in Kings County 3 Superior Court for August 26, 2021. Doc. 68 at 1-2. The Superior Court issued a bench warrant 4 for Hunt and issued a notice of forfeiture of his bail bond. Id. at 2. Defendants also informed the 5 Court that Hunt was no longer incarcerated— because he was paroled on March 9, 2021—and 6 Hunt’s current mailing address was unknown. Id. 7 On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause to Hunt, directing him to 8 explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and update his address of 9 record. Doc. 69. Hunt failed to respond to the order, and the magistrate judge recommended the 10 case be dismissed. Doc. 70. After the objection period expired, the Court performed a de novo 11 review and adopted the findings and recommendations. Doc. 71. The Court dismissed the action 12 without prejudice for failure to prosecute on December 7, 2021. Id. at 2. 13 On October 17, 2025, Hunt moved to re-open this action. Doc. 73. He submitted 14 documents to support the request on October 24, 2025. Doc. 74. Defendants opposed the motion 15 on November 7, 2025. Doc. 75. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of the district court’s 18 final orders and judgments. This includes any motion to reopen a case after it has been 19 dismissed based on failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Diaz v. CDCR, 2024 WL 4534712 (E.D. Cal. 20 Oct. 21, 2024) (recommending denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen case under Rule 60(b) after 21 dismissal based on failure to prosecute), adopted 2024 WL 4826745 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024); 22 Goff v. Gamez, 2024 WL 3205191 (Jun. 27, 2024) (same). 23 Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 24 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 25 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 26 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 27 “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 28 judgment, order, or proceeding.” Id. Rule 60(b) indicates such relief may be granted “for the 1 following reasons:”

2 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

3 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 4 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, 5 or misconduct by an opposing party;

6 (4) the judgment is void;

7 (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 8 prospectively is no longer equitable; or

9 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 11 To succeed on a Rule 60(b) motion, “a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 12 convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Deyoung v. On Habeas 13 Corpus, 2013 WL 1876120, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2013). The moving party “must demonstrate 14 both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the 15 action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). 16 III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 17 With the pending motion, Hunt makes several assertions related to his state court criminal 18 proceedings, and he seeks to reopen the case because the Attorney General did not serve him “any 19 motion [to] say the case was uplifted from the stay … [a]t any jail facility.” Doc. 73 at 5. Thus, 20 it appears Hunt seeks to reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(3) which allows relief from a final 21 order or judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. 22 To receive relief under Rule 60(b)(3), a motion must be filed “no more than a year after 23 the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); see 24 also Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (a motion under Rule 60(b)(3) 25 “shall be made not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered”). 26 This deadline is “inflexible” and cannot be extended by the Court. Inland Concrete Enters. v. 27 Kraft, 318 F.R.D. 383, 414 (C.D. Cal. 2016). As judgement was entered on December 7, 2021, 28 any motion under Rule 60(b)(3) must have been filed no later than December 7, 2022. The 1 |} motion filed on October 17, 2025—nearly four years after the entry of judgment— is untimely. 2 | Asaresult, the motion must be denied. See Norwood v. Vance, 517 Fed. Appx. 557, 558 (9th 3 || Cir. Apr. 23, 2013) (“To the extent that Norwood’s motion seeks relief under ... Rule 60(b)(3), 4 || the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Norwood filed the motion more than 5 || one year after judgment was entered”). 6 | IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons set forth above, Hunt’s motion to reopen the case is untimely. The motion 8 || to reopen the case (Doc. 73) is DENIED, and the action shall remain closed. 9 10 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

D DATE: June 1, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28