Holmes v. Cardoza

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends denying plaintiff Dominique Holmes’s motion to reopen her closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court concludes that plaintiff has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, fraud, misconduct, or another basis for relief from the prior dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to prosecute.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish any basis for relief under Rule 60(b) because she did not identify newly discovered evidence, clear error, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, or another circumstance warranting extraordinary relief; the motion to reopen should therefore be denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established a basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the previously dismissed action.
2. Whether plaintiff's failure to receive court mail excused her failure to respond to the order to show cause and justified relief from the dismissal.

Disposition

other