Adrian Moon v. Michael Johnson et al

Filing 8

ORDER RE SUMMARY DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS POST JUDGMENT EX PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION TO REOPEN THIS CASE by Judge George H. King re: 6 Motion to Reopen Case. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion be summarily denied, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (See document for specifics.) (iva)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN MOON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, et al.,

15
16
17

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-01514-UA (KK)
ORDER RE SUMMARY DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S POST JUDGMENT EX
PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION TO
REOPEN THIS CASE

On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff Adrian Moon, a state prisoner proceeding pro

18 se, filed a Post Judgment Ex Parte Emergency Motion To Reopen This Case
19 (“Motion”). The Motion requests, inter alia, that the Court vacate its prior order
20 denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees. For the
21 reasons set forth below, the Court summarily denies Plaintiff’s Motion.
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1

1

I.

2

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

3

On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, lodged a Complaint in

4 this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 102 defendants, including 27
5 California state judges and commissioners, 2 court clerks, and 11 district attorneys.
6 ECF Docket No. (“dkt.”) 1-1. The Complaint appeared to arise from the
7 defendants’ alleged misconduct in a number of civil and criminal proceedings
8 involving Plaintiff. Id.
9

Concurrently, Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of

10 Filing Fees. Dkt. 1. On March 8, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Request and
11 closed the case, finding the Complaint was “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
12 claim upon which relief may be granted” and that it “seeks monetary relief from a
13 defendant immune from such relief.” Dkt. 2.
14

More than three years later, on April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant

15 Motion. Dkt. 6. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests: (1) that the Court vacate its prior
16 order denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees;
17 (2) the recusal of the U.S. District Judge and the U.S. Magistrate Judge previously
18 assigned to this case1; (3) $1 million in sanctions for contempt of court, pursuant to
19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a); and (4) oral argument on this matter. Id.
20

II.

21

DISCUSSION

22

The instant Motion does not specify the applicable Federal Rule of Civil

23 Procedure it has been filed under. Because Plaintiff submitted his Motion after
24 entry of judgment, the Motion could only be presented as: (1) a motion to alter or
25
26
1

Plaintiff appears to claim the previously assigned U.S. District Judge and
U.S. Magistrate Judge were responsible for his confinement in the Maximum Isolation
28 Facility at the California Correctional Institution. See Mot. at 3.
27

2

1 amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); or (2) a motion for relief from judgment
2 pursuant to Rule 60(b). Here, Plaintiff did not serve his Motion within 28 days
3 after the entry of judgment, as required for motions to alter or amend a judgment
4 under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Accordingly, the Court will construe
5 Plaintiff’s Motion as having been brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal
6 Rules of Civil Procedure.
7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states the Court may relieve a party of

8 a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
9 surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
10 diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
11 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
12 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) if the judgment is void;
13 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, is based on an earlier
14 judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or where applying it prospectively is
15 no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16 60(b).
17

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff does not raise any arguments entitling him to

18 the relief he seeks. In particular, Plaintiff fails to provide any reason justifying
19 vacating the Court’s prior order denying his Request to Proceed Without
20 Prepayment of Filing Fees. As noted previously, the Court denied the Request
21 because the Complaint was frivolous, failed to state a claim, and sought monetary
22 relief against immune defendants. See Dkt. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion does not raise
23 any new evidence or facts suggesting the Court should reevaluate its determination
24 and vacate its prior order. Hence, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule
25 60(b).
26 ///
27 ///
28
3

1

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion be summarily

2 denied, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
3
4 DATED:

4/28/15

5
6

HON. GEORGE H. KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

Presented by:

10

Kenly Kiya Kato
11 United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4