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)

Download PDF
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?