Maclellan v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 291

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 23, 2019. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DOREEN MACLELLAN,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

Case No. 12-cv-05795-MMC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 289

13
14

VALLEY CARE MEDICAL CENTER, et
al.,
Defendants.

15
16

On September 25, 2012, plaintiff Doreen MacLellan, appearing pro se, filed a state

17

court action, alleging therein a number of state and federal claims arising from events

18

occurring in connection with her detention under section 5150 of the California Health

19

and Safety Code. On November 13, 2012, the case was removed to federal court,

20

wherein, on March 21, 2014, counsel was appointed to represent plaintiff pro bono.

21

Thereafter, a jury trial was held, and, on December 19, 2014, the jury rendered its verdict

22

in favor of all defendants and against plaintiff. That same date, judgment was entered

23

and the case was closed.

24

On August 12, 2019, plaintiff, again appearing pro se, filed a “Motion for

25

Extraordinary Relief Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11(c) & 7-13 and Federal Rules of

26

Civil Procedure Pursuant to 7(b), 37(b), 51(d)(2) & 49(b)(3) Preserving Claims and

27

Rulings Demand for Judgement and Relief to Be Granted to Plaintiff Pursuant to Federal

28

Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b)(C), 60(b)(1)(2)(3) and 60(d)(3) for Fraud on the Court or,

1

in the Alternative; Leave of Court to File a Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Civil

2

Local Rule 7-9(b).” The Court, having read and considered plaintiff’s motion, hereby

3

rules as follows.

4

As judgment has been entered, the only applicable authority under which the

5

motion has been brought is Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically,

6

Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3), as well as Rule 60(d)(3).

7

Where a challenge to a judgment, order, or proceeding is brought under Rule

8

60(b) “for reasons (1), (2), and (3),” the motion must be made “no more than one year

9

after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(c). Here, as noted, judgment was entered December 19, 2014, more than four-

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and-a-half years ago, and the time elapsing from orders issued or proceedings conducted

12

prior to entry of judgment is even longer. Under such circumstances, to the extent the

13

motion is brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), it is time barred and,

14

consequently, fails.

15

Although the Rule “does not limit a court’s power to . . . set aside a judgment for

16

fraud on the court,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), such relief may be granted “only when

17

the fraud is established by clear and convincing evidence.” See United States v. Estate

18

of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

19

Here, plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the representation provided to her by

20

appointed counsel. In particular, plaintiff asserts said counsel did not intend to act in her

21

best interests and instead, for personal and political reasons, favored the defense.

22

In support thereof, plaintiff points to the manner in which documents and court

23

filings were handled, remarks made to her by counsel, counsel’s law firm’s representation

24

of municipal entities, and instances of what plaintiff perceives as ineffectual responses in

25

the course of contested matters. Putting all of the above together, plaintiff contends

26

“someone tampered with the Federal Electronic Court filing system” (see Mot. at 9:5-6)

27

and “someone deliberately attempted to sabotage [her] entire case” (see id. at 6:12-13).

28

The facts on which plaintiff relies, however, are not sufficient to support either such
2

1

finding, nor do they suffice to support any other finding constituting fraud on the Court.

2

Consequently, to the extent the motion is brought pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), it fails as

3

well.

4

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the motion is hereby DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: August 23, 2019
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3