Vincent Tulumis v. State of California B. Brittsan

83 F.3d 429 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Vincent TULUMIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; B. Brittsan, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-17199. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 11, 1996. * Decided April 23, 1996. 1 Before: BROWNING and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, ** Senior District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 State prisoner Vincent Tulumis appeals the denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate a stipulated dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of California. We affirm. 1 4 It is well-settled that Rule 60(b) will not provide relief from conscious, calculated, or deliberate strategy decisions. See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950) (Rule 60(b) does not provide relief from "free, calculated, and deliberate choices"); Plotkin v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.1982) (calculated and deliberate choices are not to be relieved under…