Ajaelo v. Estrada et al

1
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JIDEOFOR AJAELO,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. ESTRADA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff Jideofor Ajaelo (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
filed a notice stating that he never received the Court’s January 9, 2026 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 18.) The Court construes the notice as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting the R&R. (See Doc. No. 17.) For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos.
1; 2.) On February 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and screened
the Complaint pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). (Doc. No. 4.)
The Court found the Complaint survived screening as to the First Amendment and Equal
Protection claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only and dismissed the remaining
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 19 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
claims against the remaining Defendants without prejudice. (Id. at 5–9.) Plaintiff was given
the option to either (1) notify the Court of his intent to proceed with his First Amendment
and Equal Protection claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only; or (2) file a First
Amended Complaint that attempts to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the
Court’s screening Order. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was instructed that if he decided to proceed
only with his claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo, the Court would issue an
Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the summons and Complaint on those
Defendants and dismiss the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants. (Id.)
On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of his intent to proceed with his Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo only and to accept dismissal
of the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) On
March 25, 2025, the Court dismissed all claims against all Defendants in Plaintiff’s
Complaint with the exception of the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims against
Defendants Estrada and Alonzo as set forth in the Court’s February 24, 2025 Order. (Doc.
No. 6.)
On January 9, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R ordered that any
objections be filed no later than January 26, 2026. (Id. at 14.) On February 2, 2026, having
not received any objections, the Court adopted the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 17.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Where a court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for
reconsideration may be based either on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e)
(motion to alter or amend judgment) or 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).
Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a district court’s final order on six grounds:
(1) 	mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	or 	excusable 	neglect; 	(2) 	newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ; (3) fraud . . . ,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 19 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
“Rule 60 reconsideration is generally appropriate in three instances: 1) when there
has been an intervening change of controlling law, 2) new evidence has come to light,
or 3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” United States
v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The party moving
for relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief. Id. at 1131.
They “must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation
of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision
fails to carry the moving party's burden.” Id. (internal quote marks omitted).
Rule 60(b)(1), “grants the power to “correct judgments [or orders] . . . which have
issued due to inadvertence or mistake.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 746 (9th Cir.
2008) (quoting Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358 U.S. 133, 145 (1958)).
Rule 60(b)(6), “the so-called catch-all provision,” “is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable
remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment.’” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &
Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). “A party moving for relief under Rule
60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that
prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.’” Harvest, 531 F.3d at
749 (quoting Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is
committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes &
Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff informs the Court that he received the February 6, 2026 Order Adopting the
R&R, but claims he never received the January 9, 2026 R&R. (Doc. No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 19 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attaches his legal mail log to support his claim that he did not receive the R&R. (Id. at 3.)
However, from the log, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff never received the R&R.
The log includes ten entries of incoming and outgoing mail between November 14, 2025,
and December 29, 2025. (Id.) It appears that the log was printed on February 2, 2026, and
states that it is “page 1 of 1.” (Id.) However, nothing on the log indicates what the search
parameters were—i.e. what was the start date and end date for the report? Without knowing
whether the log includes dates for January 2026, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff
never received the R&R.
Plaintiff has not provided evidence demonstrating that he never received the R&R,
thus, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). See Sandoval v. Los
Angeles Cnty. Sheriffs Dep’t, No. CV-1105874-DDP-VBK, 2016 WL 7191535, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (denying a motion for reconsideration where the plaintiff submitted a
report of lost property as evidence but “the reports d[id] not support [the p]laintiff’s
contention that he lost relevant legal files”) Because Plaintiff does not meet any of the six
grounds 	for 	relief 	under 	Rule 	60(b), 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	for
reconsideration.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No.
18.) The Court’s February 17, 2026 Order remains in full effect. Plaintiff may file an
Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s R&R by no later than
April 3, 2026. (See Doc. No. 17.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 19 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4