(PC) Mitchell v. Gonzales
1:23-cv-00062
E.D. Cal.Sep 19, 2023Background
- Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell, proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a retaliation claim.
- A Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the retaliation claim; the district court adopted those findings on July 5, 2023.
- Plaintiff did not object before adoption; he filed a change of address the same day, and the court re-served the adoption order to his new address on July 6.
- On July 14, Plaintiff filed objections and a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), claiming he did not receive the findings until July 11 and asserting evidence that correctional officers issued false Rule Violation Reports (RVRs) in retaliation.
- The court reviewed Rule 60(b)(6)’s “extraordinary circumstances” standard and related Ninth Circuit authority.
- The court denied reconsideration: Plaintiff’s delayed receipt is insufficient, and his asserted evidence did not present new or different facts nor show error in dismissing the retaliation claim; matter was referred back to the Magistrate Judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of objections / delayed receipt of order | Mitchell says he did not receive the findings/adoption order until July 11, so he could not timely object | Court had re-served the adoption order to Mitchell’s updated address; delayed receipt alone does not justify relief | Denied — mere delayed receipt is not a sufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b) |
| Rule 60(b) relief based on alleged false RVRs (new evidence) | Mitchell cites an Internal Affairs finding that a specific RVR was false and asserts a pattern of retaliatory false RVRs warranting reconsideration | Arguments and cited RVR do not constitute new/different evidence or show the court erred in dismissing the retaliation claim | Denied — no newly discovered evidence or showing of clear error; reconsideration not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy to prevent manifest injustice)
- Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (moving party must show injury and circumstances beyond its control prevented proper prosecution)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration granted only for new evidence, clear error, or intervening change in controlling law)