Thomas v. Shaffer et al

Filing 23


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 14 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 12 13 No. C 13-4861 SI GARY PRICE THOMAS, v. NANCY SHAFFER, et al., Defendants. / 16 In an order filed February 3, 2014, the Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, 17 and that same day entered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. The Court held that 18 plaintiff’s claims, which arose out of state court custody proceedings, were barred by the Rooker19 Feldman doctrine and judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal. 20 On April 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the ground that “the 21 judgment was taken against Plaintiff through misrepresentation of the Court.” Docket No. 21 at 2. 22 Plaintiff’s motion asserts that the Court “misrepresented Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed 23 on January 21, 2014,” and also appears to complain that the Court ruled on defendant’s motion to 24 dismiss the complaint without oral argument. 25 The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal 26 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final 27 judgment or any order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 28 1 discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move 2 for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) 3 the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier 4 judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) 5 any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion does not state any grounds to set aside the judgment, and 7 thus that plaintiff has not made the showing necessary under Rule 60(b). Northern District Civil Local 8 Rule 7-1(b) permits the Court to rule on a motion without holding a hearing. Further, because the Court 9 found that plaintiff’s claims were barred as a matter of law, it was not necessary to address plaintiff’s 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 6 motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment is DENIED. 11 Docket No. 21. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 9, 2014 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 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?