Ruiz v. Arakaki

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 59 Motion to Reopen Case, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/11/2023. (Marrujo, C)

Case 1:17-cv-01404-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
L. ARAKAKI, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REOPEN CASE
(Doc. No. 59)

On May 1, 2020, the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed and
judgment was entered. (Doc. Nos. 57, 58.)
On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reopen the case. (Doc. No. 59.) It appears
that Plaintiff contends that he was not notified of the result in this case. (Id.)

17

“Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of

18

his case, under a limited set of circumstances....” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Rule

19

60(b) relief is extraordinary and will not apply to a showing which does not justify its

20

application. See Stevens v. ITT Sys., Inc., 868 F.2d 1040, 1041 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989). “Motions for relief

21

from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are committed to the sound

22

discretion of the trial judge.” Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

23

Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a judgment or order when the moving party can show: (1)

24

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not

25

have been discovered by due diligence before the court's decision; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or

26

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any

27

other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS

28

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether the court should grant relief “depends on at least four
1

Case 1:17-cv-01404-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 2

1

factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential

2

impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good

3

faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting

4

standard to determine excusable neglect as set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.

5

Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Thus, a district court may grant a motion for relief from judgment

6

under Rule 60(b)(1) if the moving party can show mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. See Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).

8

“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), (2),

9

and (3) no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order” from which the moving party seeks

10

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

11

Plaintiff's case was dismissed and judgment was entered on May 1, 2020, however Plaintiff did

12

not file his motion to reopen the case until over two years Therefore, Plaintiff's motion was untimely

13

under Rule 52(c) and 60(b). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to meet any of the requirements for granting a

14

motion under Rule 60(b). He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

15

He has not shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established

16

that the judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, Plaintiff has not presented any other reasons

17

justifying relief from judgment. The Court’s May 1, 2020 dismissal order was served at Plaintiff’s

18

address of record which constitutes effective service. Local Rule 182(f). Indeed, the May 10, 2020,

19

was not returned by the United States Postal Office as “undeliverable.”

20
21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case is
DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: January 11, 2023

25

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2