United States of America v. Caraway et al

Filing 162

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. The Court construes Caraway's letter, filed March 2, 2016, as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So construed, the motion is denied, as it fails to state a cognizable ground for such relief. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 8, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. C-08-4371 MMC

13
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT

14
v.
15
DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,
16

Defendants.

17

/

18
19

On November 18, 2011, the Court entered judgment against defendant Douglas

20

Caraway (“Caraway”) in the amount of $181,634.35. (See Amended Judgment and Decree

21

of Sale, filed Nov. 18, 2011.) To satisfy said judgment, the Court authorized the

22

government to sell Caraway’s property located at 734 Neal Avenue in San Carlos,

23

California, and directed the government to “choose either the United States Marshal or a

24

PALS [Internal Revenue Service Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialist]” to conduct

25

the sale. (See id.)

26

Now before the Court is Caraway’s letter, filed March 2, 2016, by which Caraway

27

requests leave to conduct a “private sale” of the property. Specifically, Caraway contends

28

the property would sell for a higher price if he were allowed to conduct the sale himself. In

1

support of his request, Caraway relies on letters he recently received from his realtor and

2

his physician.

3

The Court construes Caraway’s letter as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant

4

to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So construed, the motion is denied,

5

as it fails to state a cognizable ground for such relief. Even assuming the letters from

6

Caraway’s realtor and physician could be considered newly discovered evidence under

7

Rule 60(b)(2), the motion is time-barred. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (providing “motion

8

under Rule 60(b)[(2)] must be made . . . no more than a year after the entry of the

9

judgment”).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2