(PC) Young v. Burton

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02231
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE L. YOUNG,

12 Plaintiff, No. 2:22-cv-02231-TLN-JDP

13 14 v. ORDER 15 ROBERT BURTON, et al., 16 Defendants.

17 18 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Eddie L. Young’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 19 for Relief from Final Judgment. (ECF No. 40.) No opposition has been filed. For the reasons set 20 forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 21 A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is not necessary for disposition 22 of Plaintiff’s motion. In short, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Most recently, on October 18, 2024, the magistrate judge granted 24 Defendants’ motion to file two successive dispositive motions — the first was a failure to exhaust 25 motion by November 1, 2024, and, if necessary, the second was a merits-based motion for 26 summary judgment 120 days after the magistrate judge ruled on the failure to exhaust motion. 27 (ECF No. 37.) On November 26, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), agreeing to dismiss all 1 Defendants and all claims in this action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and 2 fees. (ECF No. 38) In light of this stipulation, the Clerk of the Court dismissed the action with 3 prejudice and closed the case that same day. (ECF No. 39.) 4 On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 5 40.) Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b), contending there was a “discrepancy” attached to the 6 stipulation, which was “a recently discovered matter of concern which might constitute 7 misconduct[.]” (Id. at 2.) 8 On motion and just terms, a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the 9 following reasons: 10 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 11 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 12 Rule 59(b); 13 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 14 (4) the judgment is void; 15 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 16 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 17 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 20 In the instant case, Plaintiff argues “[r]eopening the voluntary dismissed suit by reason of 21 breach of the agreement and payment of $2,500.00 in this case” would fulfill Rule 60(b)(3)’s 22 goals. (Id. at 3.) However, Plaintiff’s argument is conclusory and fails to articulate what the 23 aforementioned “discrepancy” or “misconduct” was in the execution of the stipulation for 24 voluntary dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff cites to two cases, Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. 25 Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D. 644, 659–70 (D.N.M. 2012) and Texas v. Thirteen Pallets of 26 Indus. Oilfield Hoses and Five Pallets of Blowout Preventers, 519 F. Supp. 3d 409, 413 (S.D. 27 Tex. 2021), but fails to provide any substantive argument on how these cases apply to the instant 28 matter. (Id.) Plaintiff further fails to proffer any facts that give rise to any indication that relief is 1 warranted under Rule 60(b). 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. (ECF 3 No. 40.) 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Date: June 23, 2025 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28