(PC) Penton v. Hubard

Opinion

ANTHONY PENTON, No. 2:11-cv-00518-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER L. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s renewed motion for default judgment because the Court failed to consider P0laintiff’s timely-filed objections. (ECF No. 272.) Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” based on the following: (1) mistake, 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 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 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 justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Rule 60(b) reconsideration is generally appropriate in three instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law, (2) new evidence has come to light, or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). As argued by Plaintiff, timely objections to the findings and recommendations were filed g | and should have been considered. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and vacates the March 22, 2022 order. On February 16, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED; 2. The March 22, 2022 order (ECF No. 270) is VACATED; 3. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 16, 2022, (ECF No. 258), are 93 adopted in full; and 94 4. Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 226) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: March 29, 2022 rc’ /) “ Yoko

United States eet Judge