Cohea v. USDC, Eastern District of CA, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Vacate Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 04/17/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DANNY JAMES COHEA,
Petitioner,

10
11

Case No. 1:17-cv-01324-LJO-MJS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT

v.
(ECF NO. 10)

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this petition for writ of

19

mandamus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. On March 22, 2018, the petition was

20

dismissed. With regard to the federal defendants, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had

21

failed to show he had no other adequate remedy available. The Court concluded it was

22

without authority to grant mandamus relief as to the state defendants. Accordingly,

23

judgment was entered and the matter was closed.

24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 9, 2018 motion to vacate the judgment.

25

Petitioner contends that the undersigned is conspiring with the assigned Magistrate

26

Judge to deprive Petitioner of his right to petition the government, and is turning a blind

27
28

1

eye to Petitioner’s constitutional deprivations by accepting the false, criminal statements

2

contained in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.

3

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order on

4

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

5

discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an

6

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . ; it is

7

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it

8

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

10

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist.

11

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

12

citation omitted). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that relief under

13

Rule 60(b) is appropriate. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).

14

Petitioner has not presented argument as to any of these grounds. He does not

15

show there is no other adequate remedy available. The fact that he has been denied

16

relief in a separate case that is not the subject of this action does not demonstrate that

17

adequate remedies are unavailable. Petitioner’s disagreement with the undersigned

18

appears to be based entirely on the undersigned’s adverse rulings against him in this

19

and other cases. This disagreement in itself is not a basis for disqualification. 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 144; 28 U.S.C. § 455; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) (bias

21

generally must arise from extrajudicial source). Nor does it constitute extraordinary

22

circumstances that would warrant relief from the judgment.

23
24
25
26

Accordingly, because Petitioner has not presented a basis for relief, his motion to
vacate judgment is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 17, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2