(PS) Hedrington v. David Grant Medical Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10

11 ORLONZO HEDRINGTON, No. 2:23-cv-00801-TLN-CKD

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 DAVID GRANT MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Orlonzo Hedrington’s (“Plaintiff”) 18 Motions for Relief from Judgment and Motion to Set Aside Judgment.1 (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73, 19 20 77). Defendants David Grant Medical Center (“DGMC”) and Fairfield Police Department 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) did not file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 As discussed below, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to set aside Judgment as a 28 motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). 1 A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is not necessary for the 2 disposition of Plaintiff’s motions. In short, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against 3 Defendants, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 4 of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (“Bivens”). (ECF No. 1.) On August 5 18, 2023, the magistrate judge made findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”) to grant DGMC’s 6 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was served with 7 the F&Rs via U.S. mail that same day, and the deadline to file objections to the F&Rs was 8 fourteen (14) days thereafter. (Id.) No party filed objections to the F&Rs. 9 The Court conducted a de novo review of the F&Rs and found them to be supported by 10 the record and by proper analysis. (ECF No. 35.) On October 25, 2023, the Court adopted the 11 F&Rs in full and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against DGMC with prejudice. (Id.) The Court 12 referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings on Plaintiff’s 13 remaining claim against the Fairfield Police Department. (Id.) 14 On February 26, 2024, the magistrate judge made new findings and recommendations 15 (“Second F&Rs”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against the Fairfield Police Department on the 16 ground that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. (ECF No. 53.) 17 Plaintiff was served with the Second F&Rs via U.S. mail that same day, and the deadline to file 18 objections to the Second F&Rs was fourteen (14) days thereafter. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections 19 to the findings and recommendations, principally contending the Court is without jurisdiction to 20 grant the Fairfield Police Department’s motion to dismiss because the Fairfield Police 21 Department failed to timely file and serve its motion. (See ECF Nos. 54, 55.) 22 The Court conducted a de novo review of the Second F&Rs and found them to be 23 supported by the record and by proper analysis. (ECF No. 62.) On March 28, 2024, the Court 24 adopted the Second F&Rs in full and dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against the Fairfield Police 25 Department. (ECF No. 62.) The Clerk of Court entered Judgment that same day. (ECF No. 63.) 26 Plaintiff subsequently filed three motions for relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73) 27 and a motion to set aside (ECF No. 77), which the Court construes as a motion for relief for 28 Judgment under Rule 60(b). See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must 1 construe pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally). Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b), principally 2 contending the Court erred in adopting the magistrate court’s F&Rs.2 (See ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73, 3 77.) 4 On motion and just terms, a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the 5 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 6

7 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 8 under Rule 59(b);

9 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 10

11 (4) the judgment is void;

12 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; 13 or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

14 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 16 In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to relief under Rule 17 60(b). Plaintiff makes cursory arguments and merely recites the operative text from various 18 subsections of Rule 60(b) without proffering facts that give rise to any indication that relief is 19 warranted. (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73, 77.) For example, Plaintiff argues the Court fraudulently 20 favored Defendants without alleging any facts that plausibly suggest such an occurrence. (See 21 ECF No. 77.) The arguments in Plaintiff’s other motions are substantially similar in their 22 conclusory nature. (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 73, 77.) 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 2 Plaintiff also seeks relief under Rule 60(a)(1), however, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate there has been any oversight or omission, nor does the Court find one. Therefore, the Court declines to 28 address Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to Rule 60(a)(1). 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Relief from Judgment. (ECF 2 | Nos. 64, 67, 73, 77.) 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | Date: September 30, 2024 5

TROY L. NUNLEY 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28