Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 171

ORDER GRANTING Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment and Modify Order Granting Motion to Dismiss 168 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/18/16: The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-open this case; The case is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
CLARK, et al.,

Case No. 1:10-cv-00447 LJO DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
VACATE JUDGMENT AND MODIFY
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
[ECF No. 168]

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

18

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 12, 2010. On October

19

14, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On December

20

29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended that

21

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed. This Court adopted the

22

Findings and Recommendations on February 4, 2015, thereby dismissing the case.

23

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit

24

Court of Appeals. The parties engaged in the Ninth Circuit’s mediation program and agreed that

25

Plaintiff’s argument on appeal concerning the viability of his claims for damages was meritorious.

26

The parties agreed to resolve the appeal by stipulating to dismissal of the appeal and filing a joint

27

motion to vacate the judgment and modify the order granting the motion to dismiss in order to allow

28

Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on allegations of past misconduct to continue in the District
1

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

Court. On May 10, 2016, the parties filed the instant joint motion to vacate judgment and modify
the order granting the motion to dismiss.
DISCUSSION
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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 ...” exist.
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation
omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control....”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of
a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water
Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in
part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, the parties request that the Court vacate the judgment and to modify the order of
dismissal. In particular, the parties request that the Court modify the February 4, 2015, order
adopting the Findings and Recommendation in full, to deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss
and to allow Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages to proceed. The parties agree that Plaintiff’s
transfer to another prison mooted claims for injunctive relief; however, the parties now agree that the
transfer did not moot claims for damages based on allegations of past misconduct. Therefore, the
Court did not lose subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The Court finds good cause to
vacate judgment in this matter, and to reconsider the order dismissing the case.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) The parties’ joint motion to vacate judgment is GRANTED;
2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-open this case;
3) The Court’s order of February 4, 2015, adopting the Findings and Recommendation is
MODIFIED to deny in part the Findings and Recommendations concerning Plaintiff’s
claim for damages based on past misconduct; in all other respects the Findings and
Recommendations are ADOPTED;
2

1
2

4) This matter shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on past misconduct; and
5) The case is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 18, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3