1

2

3

4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 12 v. (ECF Nos. 205, 206). 13 J. QUICK, et al., 14 Defendant. 15

16 On March 18, 2024, after the jury trial in this matter had concluded, the Court received 17 “Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Errors in the Jury Instructions,” (ECF No. 205) and 18 “Plaintiff’s Objection’s to the Court’s Denial of his Motion for Subpoena Forms and Motion for 19 Extension of Time to Fix Evidence,” (ECF No. 206). On March 21, 2023, Defendants filed 20 responses to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF Nos. 209, 210). 21 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s belated objections are overruled. 22 A. Jury Instructions Objections 23 The Court submitted proposed jury instructions to the parties on March 6, 2024. (ECF No. 24 191). The Court held a conference before the start of the jury trial on the morning of March 12, 25 2024, and heard and ruled on all objections to the proposed jury instructions. Plaintiff made 26 objections at that time, which were addressed by the Court. Plaintiff did not indicate he had 27 additional objections, written or otherwise. The Court then proceeded to a jury trial. The Court 28 1 granted Defendants’ directed verdict on March 14, 2024. (ECF No. 200). 2 Now, the Court has received a document that purports to be Plaintiff’s objections to jury 3 instructions, which are dated March 11, but were not received by the Court until March 18, after 4 the jury trial had concluded. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(b) provides that the court “must inform the parties of 5 its proposed instructions and proposed action on the requests before instructing the jury and 6 before final jury arguments.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(1). Further, the court “must give the parties an 7 opportunity to object on the record and out of the jury’s hearing before the instructions and 8 arguments are delivered.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(2). An objection to jury instructions is timely if it 9 is made at that “opportunity to object on the record” or if “a party was not informed of an 10 instruction or action on a request before that opportunity to object, and the party objects promptly 11 after learning that the instruction or request will be, or has been, given or refused.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 51(c)(2)(A)-(B). 13 Here, the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to object to jury instructions on the record on 14 the morning of March 12, before the jury trial commenced. Plaintiff made objections to the 15 instructions at that time, which were addressed by the Court on the record. Accordingly, 16 Plaintiff’s additional objections dated March 11, 2024 (ECF No. 205) are OVERRULED as 17 untimely and procedurally improper. 18 B. Objections to Other Court Orders 19 Also after the conclusion of the jury trial, Plaintiff filed objections to the pre-trial order 20 denying his “motion for subpoena forms and motion for extension of time to fix evidence.” (ECF 21 No. 206). Plaintiff also objects to the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion in limine to 22 preclude Plaintiff from presenting certain evidence. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the Court “erred” in 23 precluding certain evidence. (Id.) Plaintiff further argues “that the magistrate’s orders” were biased against Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff “respectfully objects to the magistrate’s denial of his 24 motions.” (Id.) 25 To the extent Plaintiff raises objections to those orders after the jury trial has concluded, 26 such objections are untimely. 27 Moreover, Plaintiff’s objections do not present any basis for reconsidering the Court’s 28 1 | prior orders. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of 2 | the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or 3 | judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 4 | discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 5 | Judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 6 judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent 7 highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 8 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it

9 “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 0 Pharma GmbH & Co.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 12 Here, plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). 8 C. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's objections (ECF Nos. 205, 206) are OVERRULED. 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ March 29, 2024 [pp ny — 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28