Williams v. Whelan et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

9
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

MICHAEL WHELAN; et al.,

12

No. C-13-2723 EMC (pr)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 19)

13
14
15

On December 10, 2013, the Court stayed the proceedings in this civil rights action pending

16

the conclusion of the civil commitment proceedings against Plaintiff under California’s Sexually

17

Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. Plaintiff has filed a

18

“motion seeking relief from the district court’s December 10, 2013 judgment, pursuant to Rule

19

60(b)(1), (2) or (6).” Docket # 19.

20

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 because no final

21

judgment or order has been entered in this action. The proper vehicle for challenging an

22

interlocutory order would be a motion for reconsideration. To seek reconsideration of an

23

interlocutory order, such as the order to stay proceedings, a party must obtain leave of court to file a

24

motion for reconsideration, and show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave to file a motion for

25

reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court

26

before entry of the order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of

27

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time

28

of the order; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time

1

of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented

2

to the court before such interlocutory order. See N. D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

3

Even if Plaintiff had followed the proper procedure and filed a motion for leave to file a

9(b) for reconsideration of the order to stay proceedings. This action was stayed under the reasoning

6

of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), because

7

“[s]uccess on any of Plaintiff’s claims would imply the invalidity of the pending SVPA proceedings

8

or any eventual commitment that might occur.” Docket # 14. That decision was, and remains,

9

correct. Plaintiff’s collateral estoppel argument in his motion for relief from judgment is legally

10

frivolous and his other arguments do not call into question the propriety of the stay. Accordingly,

11
For the Northern District of California

motion for reconsideration, his motion does not meet the substantive criteria under Local Rule 7-

5

United States District Court

4

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. (Docket # 19.)

12

Plaintiff is reminded that, if he wants to challenge the lawfulness of his current custody, the

13

exclusive method by which he may do so in federal court is by filing a petition for writ of habeas

14

corpus.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: April 24, 2014
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2