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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?