Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 222

ORDER Denying 221 Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion for Retrial Due to Error, Mistake and Inadvertence of Court, and Intentional Fraud by Defense Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/29/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. MENDEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b)
MOTION FOR RETRIAL DUE TO ERROR,
MISTAKE AND INADVERTENCE OF COURT,
AND INTENTIONAL FRAUD BY DEFENSE
COUNSEL
(ECF No. 221)

17
18

I.

Introduction

19

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties consented to magistrate

21

judge jurisdiction in this case. (ECF No. 117.) Following a jury trial in which a verdict for the defense

22

was reached, judgment was entered on December 7, 2015. (ECF No. 214.)

23

On December 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), seeking relief

24

due to error, mistake and inadvertence of the Court, and intentional fraud by defense counsel. (ECF

25

No. 221.) Previously, on December 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 215.) The

26

Ninth Circuit processed and docketed Plaintiff’s appeal, which is now pending. (ECF No. 216.)

27

Generally speaking, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over

28

the matters appealed. Townley v. Miller, 693 F.3d 1041, 1042 (citing Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d
1

1

822 (9th Cir. 1982)). However, under Federal Rule of 62.1(a)(2), a district court retains the authority

2

to deny a motion that is timely filed even though an appeal has been docketed and is pending. Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2); see also Simpson v. Evans, 525 Fed. Appx. 535, 536 (9th Cir. 2013) (pursuant to

4

Rule 62.1, district court retained jurisdiction to deny a timely-filed motion for leave to amend petition,

5

even though motion was filed after notice of appeal). Consequently, the Court determines it has the

6

authority and jurisdiction to deny Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons explained below

7

II.

Discussion

8

Plaintiff seeks relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and a retrial in this matter based on

9

the improper exclusion of certain exhibits from trial due to fraud and mistake. Under Federal Rule of

10

Civil Procedure 60(b), a district court may relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds

11

including but not limited to 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 2) newly

12

discovered evidence; 3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; or 4) any other

13

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Contrary to

14

Plaintiff’s arguments, he has stated no grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).

15

Plaintiff argues that defense counsel committed fraud during the trial in this case by objecting

16

on hearsay grounds to the admission of two exhibits he sought to admit; specifically, two pages of

17

medical notes, copies of which are attached to his motion (ECF No. 221, pp. 9, 11.) Plaintiff claims

18

that defense counsel agreed at the November 13, 2015 pre-trial motions in limine hearing in this

19

matter not to object to the documents in Plaintiff’s file. Thus, he argues that the objections counsel

20

raised at trial violated that agreement.

21

Plaintiff’s argument is based on an incorrect premise. Defense counsel never agreed to forego

22

any evidentiary objections to any of Plaintiff’s documents during the November 13, 2015 hearing.

23

Rather, the matters discussed during that hearing are set forth in the Court’s orders on the parties’

24

motions in limine, (ECF Nos. 198, 199), which did not include any agreement by defense counsel to

25

refrain from raising hearsay or any other objections to Plaintiff’s medical documents. Nor did the

26

parties inform the Court at any other time of any stipulations to forego hearsay objections to Plaintiff’s

27

medical notes. If there were any agreements, as mentioned in the pretrial statement, they were not

28
2

1

placed on the record and the pretrial statement mentioned objections to authenticity of documents

2

only, and not as to hearsay objections. Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud by defense counsel are baseless.

3

Plaintiff also argues that the Court erred in sustaining the hearsay objection to the two pages of

4

medical notes he sought to admit. Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) in support of his

5

argument that the statements by the health care providers in those notes are admissible. This argument

6

misstates the hearsay exception in that rule. That exception applies to statements made by patients to

7

healthcare providers in the course of seeking a diagnoses or treatment. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). See also

8

White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S. Ct. 736, 743, 116 L. Ed. 2d 848 (1992) (“[A] statement

9

made in the course of procuring medical services, where the declarant knows that a false statement

10

may cause misdiagnosis or mistreatment, carries special guarantees of credibility that a trier of fact

11

may not think replicated by courtroom testimony.” ) This hearsay exception does not apply to the

12

healthcare provider’s statements or medical diagnoses written down in medical notes which Plaintiff

13

sought to enter into evidence in this case.

14

Plaintiff also cites Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), the exception to hearsay statements for

15

admissions made by an opposing party, in support of his argument that the providers’ statements in his

16

medical notes were admissible at trial in this matter. He specifically quotes language from the

17

Advisory Committee’s notes regarding admissions made by adopting or acquiescing in the statement

18

of another. (ECF No. 221, p. 5.) This exception to the hearsay rule does not apply here, because

19

Plaintiff seeks to admit the statements of a non-party health care provider, not statements made by his

20

opponent.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that statements which are sought to be introduced for a purpose other

21
22

than the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay. (ECF No. 221, p. 6.) This does not apply here,

23

since Plaintiff admits he sought to introduce the health care providers’ statements regarding his

24

injuries as factually true statements about his injuries. (Id. at 3-4.) This attempted use of the doctors’

25

statements fits the definition of hearsay. Plaintiff has not shown any error by the Court in sustaining

26

the hearsay objection raised against the medical notes he sought to introduce into evidence.

27

///

28

///
3

1
2

III.

Conclusion and Order
For the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion

3

for retrial due to error, mistake and inadvertence of the Court, and intentional fraud by defense counsel

4

(ECF No. 221), is DENIED.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 29, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4