Polk v. Pittman et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying 117 Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SUSAN MAE POLK,

12

No. 1:11-cv-00728-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PITTMAN, et al.,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60
(Doc. No. 117)
Defendants.

16
17

On September 21, 2017, plaintiff moved the court for relief from judgment under Rule

18

60(b), once again criticizing the assigned magistrate judge for a delay in the screening of her

19

complaint, for exaggerating the size of the plaintiff’s prior pleadings, for falsely accusing plaintiff

20

of anti-Semitism, for drawing credibility determinations in defendants’ favor, and numerous other

21

alleged errors. (Doc. No. 117.)

22

Among other provisions, Rule 60 allows the court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to

23

“relieve a party or . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” for “mistake, inadvertence,

24

surprise, or excusable neglect” and for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

60(b)(1), (b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision is to be “used sparingly as an equitable

26

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances

27

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.”

28

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &
1

1

Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). Generally, relief under Rule 60 will be available

2

only in three instances: “1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law, 2) new

3

evidence has come to light, or 3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

4

injustice.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

5

Moreover, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion.” Id. (quoting

6

Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992)).

7

Here, it is clear plaintiff disagrees with both the magistrate and district judge’s

8

assessments of her complaint. However, the court finds plaintiff has presented no persuasive

9

reason to grant relief under Rule 60. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment

10

(Doc. No. 117) is denied.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

October 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2