The People of the United States et al v. United States of America Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Relief from Final Order. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 5/28/20. (JLH, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00014-SLG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On January 11, 2018, Louis Holger, a self-represented litigant, filed a civil
complaint with multiple exhibits which named minor children.1 The Court issued
an order sealing the docket and directing Mr. Holger to file a redacted complaint
and exhibits or risk his case being closed.2 Mr. Holger did not file redacted
documents.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on February 27, 2018.3 A final judgment
was issued February 28, 2018.4 The entire case remained sealed. On February

1

Docket 1.

2

Docket 5.

3

Dockets 6 & 7.

4

Docket 8.

6, 2020, the Court sua sponte redacted the complaint and unsealed the docket.5
On May 1, 2020, Mr. Holger filed a “Dual Motion for Relief from Final Order
and Motion for a Copy of the Courts Order and Attachments.”6 Mr. Holger states
he did not respond in 2018 to the Court’s order for redacted documents, because
he was experiencing trauma, “as a result of my wife & children being kidnapped,
beaten, and raped by dirty cops, & other criminals pretending to be government
agents” and that “criminals pretending to be the government were stealing my
mail[.]”7

Mr. Holger alleges that he inadvertently missed the Court’s order to

submit redacted documents; therefore, he should be entitled to relief from the
judgment under Rules 60(b)(1) and (6). Furthermore, Mr. Holger requests copies
of the Court’s prior orders and any corresponding attachments.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides that a Court may grant
relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding due to “mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.”

A court may find excusable neglect in

circumstances where a litigant misses a filing deadline due to negligence or

Docket 8 (explaining that the public’s right to access judicial records supported the
Court’s own redaction of the complaint in accordance with Rule 5.2 of Federal Civil
Procedure and unsealing of the docket).
5

6

Docket 11.

7

Docket 11 at 2.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00014-SLG, The People of the United States, et al. v. United States of
America, Inc., et al.
Order
Page 2 of 5

inadvertent mistake.8 However, a litigant must move for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)
“within a reasonable time” that is “no more than a year after entry of the judgment.”9
The above captioned case was dismissed on February 27, 2018 with a final
judgment issued on February 28, 2019—over two years ago. Mr. Holger has not
filed his motion within the required one-year timeframe. Therefore, he is not
eligible for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
Alternatively, Mr. Holger requests relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Under Rule
60(b)(6), a Court may grant relief from a judgment for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” While there is not a strict timeliness requirement, a motion made
under Rule 60(b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time.”10 But Rule 60(b)(6)
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,”

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380,
395 (1993); see also Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997)
(adopting the United States Supreme Court’s equitable test for excusable neglect).
8

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Case No. 3:18-cv-00014-SLG, The People of the United States, et al. v. United States of
America, Inc., et al.
Order
Page 3 of 5

order, or proceeding.11 In addition, Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catch-all provision” and is
only appropriate when “none of Rule 60(b)’s enumerated circumstances appl[y].12
Mr. Holger makes his motion under Rule 60(b)(6) on the same grounds as
his motion under Rule 60(b)(1)—inadvertently missing the Court’s filing deadline.13
This renders relief under Rule 60(b)(6) unavailable.14 And he has not made the

Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993).
11

12

13

Navajo Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1173 (9th Cir. 2017).
Docket 11 at 2.

Even if the Court were able to consider Mr. Holger’s arguments on the merits, Mr.
Holger’s extensive litigation history on these same arguments would likely bar him from
relief. Since the commencement of the above captioned case, Mr. Holger has filed eight
additional civil actions alleging the same or similar theories of sexual violence against
women and children. Native Village of Kotzebue, et al. v. City of Kotzebue, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00045-SLG; Native Village of Kotzebue, et al. v. City of Kotzebue, Inc,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00059-SLG; John-Wesley, et al. v. Gleason, et al., Case No. 3:18cv-00079-TMB; Holger, et al. v. Burgess, et al.; Case No. 2:18-cv-00277-RRB; Holger v.
Burgess, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00287-RRB; Smith, et al. v. Saint Paul Travelers Co.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00002-RRB; Holger v. City of Kotzebue, Inc., Case No. 3:19cv-00004-RRB; Williams v. City of Kotzebue, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-147-RRB; Holger v.
Colbath, et al.; Case No. 2:19-cv-00004-RRB. As a result of these filings, a prelitigation
screening order has been entered against him. See Holger v Burgess, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00287-RRB at Docket 6. Additionally, Mr. Holger has been indicted on charges
of cyberstalking related to his theories of child abduction, sexual violence against women
and children, and the child welfare system. See generally USA v. Eklund, Case No. 3:18cv-35-SLG; Dockets 2, 97, 215, 220, 224, 228, 233 & 252. Judicial notice is the “court’s
acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a wellknown and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d
1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Fed. R. Evid. 201.
14

Case No. 3:18-cv-00014-SLG, The People of the United States, et al. v. United States of
America, Inc., et al.
Order
Page 4 of 5

motion within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances he’s described.
Mr. Holger has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances for relief.
Therefore, Mr. Holger is not eligible for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED the “Dual Motion for Relief from
Final Order” at Docket 11 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk
of Court shall send Mr. Holger a copy of the documents at Dockets 5-7, along with
a copy of this order.
DATED this 28th day of May, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:18-cv-00014-SLG, The People of the United States, et al. v. United States of
America, Inc., et al.
Order
Page 5 of 5