Look v. Harris et al
Filing
52
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 48 Motion to Alter Judgment. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
WILLIAM B. LOOK, JR.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
No. C 16-5465 CRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v.
RELIEF
KAMALA HARRIS et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Pro se Plaintiff William B. Look has filed a “Motion for Relief Under Rule 60 and
18
Request for Leave to Amend” (dkt. 48), in which he asks the Court to vacate judgment and to
19
allow him to amend his complaint. Look fails to identify the provision of Rule 60 upon
20
which he bases his motion, but, as he is not claiming a clerical mistake under Rule 60(a), and
21
as none of the other Rule 60(b) grounds for relief appear applicable, the Court will consider
22
the motion under Rule 60(b)(6), “any other reason that justifies relief.” “Only ‘extraordinary
23
circumstances’ may constitute an ‘other reason that justifies’ reconsideration” under Rule
24
60(b)(6). See Totah v. Lucasfilm Entertainment Co. Ltd., No. C-09-4051 MMC, 2011 WL
25
723726, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp.,
26
486 U.S. 847, 864 & n.11 (1988)).
27
28
Look argues that there was no final judgment on the merits in state court, a
prerequisite for res judicata. See Mot. at 2. But Look already made this argument, and the
1
Court rejected it. See Order Granting Motions to Dismiss (dkt. 46) at 9–11. Even if Look is
2
correct in his interpretation of the state proceedings, the Court’s Order dismissing his
3
Complaint was not based on res judicata alone. See id. at 11–14 (holding that judicial and
4
quasi-judicial immunity bar Look’s claims).
5
Look also complains that he was denied oral argument, “despite having made a record
of intending to address the issue of waiver of sovereign immunity.” Mot. at 2. But “[i]t is
7
well-settled that there is no constitutional due process right to oral argument,” see Sovereign
8
Gen. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 359 F. App’x 705, 708 (9th Cir. 2009), and the
9
Court’s Order vacating the hearing cited to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), which provides that in a
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
judge’s discretion, “a motion may be determined without oral argument,” see Order Taking
11
Matter Under Submission (dkt. 45); Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). That Look filed a “Notice of Intent to
12
Cite State Authority at Oral Argument” (dkt. 42), in which he asserted his plan to discuss
13
eight cases that he, for no clear reason, did “not previously cite[] in any of [his] papers,” id.
14
at 1,1 including his thirty-seven page Opposition brief (dkt. 29),2 or his unauthorized
15
“Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State Bar Defendants’ Rule 12(B)
16
Motion” (dkt. 30), does not entitle him to oral argument.
17
Finally, Look argues that he should be given leave to amend to add additional
18
defendants, asserting: “although the Order does not address municipal liability per se, instead
19
of the State Bar[,] individual defendants responsible for the pattern and practice of blocking
20
access to MPRE scores could be substituted.” See Mot. at 3. This argument is not altogether
21
clear. The Court’s order did not address municipal liability because Look did not sue a
22
municipality. See generally Compl. To the extent that Look seeks to add additional,
23
unnamed defendants not identified in his original complaint, or this Motion, who created the
24
Bar’s alleged “pattern and practice of blocking access to MPRE scores,” he bumps up against
25
26
27
1
The cases he identified were not newly-decided. Two were from the 1960’s, two from the
1970’s, two from the 1990’s, and two from the 2000’s. See id.
2
28
See Civil L.R. 7-3 (requiring that opposition briefs “may not exceed 25 pages of text”);
Standing Order of this Court ¶ 5 (“Briefs or Memoranda of Points and Authorities . . . in opposition to[]
any motions filed in an action . . . may not exceed FIFTEEN (15) pages in length.”
2
1
the Eleventh Amendment. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Sup. Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th
2
Cir. 1995). To the extent that he seeks to impose on those individuals some kind of
3
supervisory liability, it is hard to imagine how a supervisor could be liable for the very
4
actions of his or her supervisees—the individuals who actually interacted with Look—that
5
the Court already held do not create liability. See Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th
6
Cir. 2009) (no supervisor liability if no underlying constitutional violation); see also Order
7
Granting Motions to Dismiss at 11–14. Because Look has failed to articulate a viable theory
8
for suing additional defendants, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile.
9
See Leadsinger, Inc. v. MBG Music Publishing, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).3
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Given the lack of extraordinary circumstances, see Totah, 2011 WL 723726, at *1, the
Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 3, 2017
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Look also argues that “the allegations against the Attorney General can be ‘beefed up,’” see
Mot. at 3–4, without offering any additional detail. He has not demonstrated “a very significant
possibility of future harm.” See San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126
(9th Cir. 1996).
3
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?