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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?