Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Raymond W. Fullerton’s action against Tim Saxon and other defendants was dismissed on November 7, 2024, for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim. The dismissal is recorded on the docket as ECF No. 10, and the case remained closed until Fullerton moved to reopen it nearly two years later.
On August 17, 2026, Fullerton submitted a one-page motion to reopen the case, docketed as ECF No. 12. According to the findings and recommendations, the motion offered no explanation for his earlier failure to prosecute or for the lengthy delay in moving to reopen. The assigned district judge referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson under ECF No. 13.
The case is captioned in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under Case No. 2:23-cv-2801-DC-JDP. The document filed on October 27, 2026, is styled “Findings and Recommendations,” reflecting the posture in which a magistrate judge advises the assigned district judge on a referred motion rather than issuing a final order, and it expressly states that it is submitted to the district judge assigned to the case.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Peterson recommended that Fullerton’s motion to reopen be denied as untimely. He applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), under which a Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a reasonable time” and “no more than a year after the entry of judgment.” Because the motion was filed nearly two years after the judgment and included no explanation that might justify such a lengthy delay, he concluded that it was plainly untimely and recommended denial on that basis.
The document is a recommendation, not a final order denying the motion. It was submitted to the assigned United States district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties were given fourteen days after service to file written objections captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” with any response due within fourteen days after service of the objections. The filing warns that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998), and Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
The recommendation rests on the timing defect alone. The magistrate judge did not reach the merits of the underlying dismissal or the earlier failures to prosecute and to comply with court orders; the nearly two-year, unexplained delay was itself sufficient to support the recommended denial of the motion to reopen, so no other ground needed to be addressed.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge analyzed the motion to reopen under the timing rule governing Rule 60(b) motions, specifically the one-year outer limit stated in Rule 60(c)(1).
- The nearly two-year gap between the November 7, 2024 judgment and the August 17, 2026 motion exceeded that limit, and the motion was described as plainly untimely.
- The absence of any explanation for the delay or for the earlier failure to prosecute supported the recommendation to deny relief.
- The recommendation does not itself finally dispose of the motion; the assigned district judge must act on it after the objection process, so the motion remains pending before the district court.
- A party seeking review must file written objections within fourteen days of service, and failure to do so may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.
Why It Matters
The filing illustrates the practical importance of the one-year limit for Rule 60(b) motions and the need to explain any substantial delay. A one-page request to reopen, without reasons addressing the dismissal or the passage of time, was insufficient to overcome the timing problem identified here, and the magistrate judge treated the unexplained delay as independently dispositive.
It also shows the difference between a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and a district court’s final decision. The immediate result is a proposed denial, subject to the fourteen-day objection process and further action by the assigned district judge. The recommendation underscores that procedural timeliness can be dispositive before a court ever considers the merits of a request to reopen a dismissed case.