Walker v. American Red Cross et al, No. 6:2020cv01755 - Document 51 (D. Or. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment 48 is DENIED. Signed on 3/6/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Download PDF
Walker v. American Red Cross et al Doc. 51 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION Civ. No 6:20-cv-01755-MK JERRY LEE WALKER, OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS, ET AL. Defendants. ______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge: Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Jerry Walker’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 48. Plaintiff seeks relief from a judgment entered April 12, 2023, pursuant to the Court’s order adopting the findings and recommendations (“F&R”) of Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, ECF No. 40. For the reasons explained, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, ECF No. 48, is DENIED. BACKGROUND The Court will not repeat the procedural history here, nor will it chronicle the record of plaintiff’s many filings. On December 22, 2022, Judge Kasubhai recommended that plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave Page 1 – OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com to amend. ECF No. 40 (“F&R”). Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No. 42. On April 12, the Court adopted Judge Kasubhai’s F&R and dismissed plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 46 (“Order”). In that Order, the Court also adopted Judge Kasubhai’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of a prior order, ECF No. 37, and deny plaintiff’s motion for a stay, ECF No. 43. On April 12, the same day the Court issued its order and entered a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff filed this motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 48. In his motion, plaintiff reiterates his objections to the F&R and cites his disagreements with the Court’s adoption of the F&R. DISCUSSION Under Rule 60(b), relief from a judgment or order is available for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). In plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, plaintiff copies from his objections to the F&R. See ECF No. 48 at 2-3 (rationale for relief) (citing ECF No. 42) (objections). Plaintiff also “objects” generally to the Court’s overall decision to dismiss the third amended complaint and deny plaintiff’s motion for stay and motion for recusal. ECF No. No. 48 at 3-4. Page 2 – OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff does not point to any factors identifying any kind of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, fraud, or satisfaction” that warrant relief from judgment. Instead, plaintiff presents the same arguments that the Court has considered and rejected. A Rule 60(b) motion is not an avenue to relitigate the same issues and arguments on which the Court has already ruled. Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D.Nev.2005); see Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, Court finds that plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 48, is DENIED. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _____ 6th day of March 2024. _______________________ /s/Ann Aiken Ann Aiken United States District Judge Page 3 – OPINION & ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.