1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:22-cv-01706-DJC-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. JENKINS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 27, 2024, the Court adopted the Findings and 18 Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, granted Summary Judgment, and 19 directed the Clerk of the Court to close this case. (ECF No. 44.) Final Judgment was 20 entered as a result. (See ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion to Alter or 21 Amend Judgment or Relief from a Final Judgment” under Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). (Mot. (ECF No. 46).) Therein, Plaintiff argues that the 23 Court improperly granted summary judgment as to his First and Third claims against 24 Defendant Jenkins. (Mot. at 1–3.) Plaintiff also contends that his Second claim was 25 dismissed in error, and without Plaintiff’s knowledge or notice given.” (Mot. at 2–3.) 26 Generally, a motion for reconsideration is most appropriately brought under 27 Rule 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart,

, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Under Rule 28 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 1 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 2 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 3 ACandS, Inc.,

, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) permits the Court to 4 relieve a party from final judgment for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 5 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 6 could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) 7 fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 8 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 9 satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been 10 reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any 11 other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 12 As to Plaintiff’s First and Third causes of action, Plaintiff has not established 13 grounds for reconsideration or relief from final judgment. The Findings and 14 Recommendations considered and addressed Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments 15 regarding the exhaustion of these claims. (ECF No. 41 at 8–10.) They further 16 addressed Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the objective fear prong. (Id. at 10.) 17 Plaintiff’s Motion thus does not identify newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an 18 intervening change in law that would justify reconsideration under Rule 59. It also 19 does not identify any basis for relief from final judgment under Rule 60. Plaintiff’s 20 Motion as to these claims is denied. 21 As to Plaintiff’s assertion that his Second claim was dismissed in error and 22 without notice, this is inaccurate. As stated in his Complaint, Plaintiff’s Second claim 23 asserted First and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on a rules violation report 24 submitted against him by Defendant Jenkins and the events during the subsequent 25 disciplinary and grievance proceedings. (ECF No. 1 at 4–4B.) These allegations were 26 fully addressed in the Magistrate Judge’s initial screening order. (ECF No. 7 at 3.) The 27 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not stated a cognizable claim on these facts. 28 (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to state a claim on this basis if he wished to 1 | doso. (See id. at 3, 5.) But Plaintiff elected to forgo the opportunity to file an 2 | amended complaint and instead asked that he be permitted to proceed on the claims 3 | inthe Complaint that the Court had determined were cognizable as alleged. (ECF No. 4 | 10.) As explicitly stated in the Notice filed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff chose to proceed on his 5 | claims “that defendant Jenkins improperly searched plaintiff in violation of the Fourth 6 | and Eighth Amendments and also retaliation against plaintiff in violation of the First 7 | Amendment.” (/d.) Thus, Plaintiff's Second claim was not dismissed in error and 8 | without notice but as a result of the Magistrate Judge’s screening and Plaintiff's own 9 | election to proceed on only his cognizable claims. Plaintiff's Motion on this basis is 10 | also denied. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Relief from a 12 | Final Judgment (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. 13 14 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: _September 15, 2025 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | DJC1 - gosztyla22cv01706.reopen 27 28