(BIVENS)(PC) Franklin v. United States

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMERY LEE FRANKLIN, III., Case No. 1:10-cv-00142-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT1

13 v. (Doc. No. 152) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “letter to the judge” requesting the Court, inter 18 alia, reopen this case and enter judgment in his favor. (Doc. No. 152). The Court liberally 19 construes the letter to be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. For the reasons 20 stated below, the Court denies the motion. 21 The docket reveals this case proceeded to a two-day bench trial. (Doc. Nos. 142, 143). 22 Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), the court issued its oral ruling and stated its findings and 23 conclusion on the record. (Doc. No. 143). Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on 24 August 15, 2014, and the case was closed. (Doc. No. 146). Plaintiff did not timely file either a 25 Rule 52(b) or Rule 59 motion or appeal the judgment. …