(PC) Hamilton v. Armstrong

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00445
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERT J. HAMILTON, No. 2:19-cv-0445-MCE-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. ARMSTRONG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 15, 2019, the Court dismissed this action due to Plaintiff Albert J. 18 Hamilton’s (“Plaintiff”) failure to pay the filing fee. ECF Nos. 26, 27. Presently before the 19 Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 60(b)(6).1 ECF No. 28. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is 21 DENIED. 22 Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek reconsideration of a final judgment or any order 23 where such a party can demonstrate: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 24 neglect; . . . [or] (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions 25 for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of 26 the district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). Rule 27 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 28 noted otherwise. 1 | 60(b)(6) is the “catch-all” clause “intended to encompass errors or actions beyond the 2 | petitioner's control.” Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 n.8, 1170 n.11 3 | (9th Cir. 2002). Courts therefore use Rule 60(b)(6) relief “sparingly as an equitable 4 || remedy to prevent manifest injustice” and grant relief “only where extraordinary 5 | circumstances prevent . . . a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 6 || erroneous judgment.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 7 | 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must 8 || show that he suffered an injury as a result of the judgment from which he seeks relief 9 | and that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from taking timely action to 10 || protect his interests. Id.; see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 Here, Plaintiff fails to show any extraordinary circumstances beyond his control 12 | that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant within the 13 || meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and his failure to pay the filing fee resulted in dismissal 14 | of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate, ECF No. 28, is DENIED. 15 IT |S SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: January 10, 2020 17

UNITED STATES DISTRI 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28