Wood et al v. County of Contra Costa et al

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK OF COURT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 8, 2021. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREA WOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK OF COURT Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 19-cv-07597-MMC 12 13 On October 14, 2020, the Clerk of Court entered judgment on the Court's orders of 14 dismissal as to all claims in plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Specifically, the 15 Court (1) dismissed plaintiff Andrea Wood's ("Wood") claims without further leave to 16 amend, for failure to a state a claim, and (2) dismissed plaintiff T.P.'s claims without 17 prejudice, for the reason that he is a minor who is not represented by counsel. 18 The Court is in receipt of Wood's "Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, Order of 19 Proceeding," received January 4, 2021, by which Wood, proceeding pro se, seeks relief 20 from the judgment for purposes of filing a Second Amended Complaint.1 21 "[O]nce judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend the complaint 22 can be entertained only if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought under 23 Rule 59 or 60." Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996). In her motion, 24 Wood seeks relief from the judgment under Rule 60. Wood fails, however, to identify any 25 cognizable reason for granting relief from the judgment. 26 27 28 1 Although Wood has not submitted a proposed SAC, she has described, in the motion, the nature of the claims she seeks to assert in the proposed SAC. 1 Accordingly, Wood's motion for relief is hereby DENIED. 2 Lastly, as the motion is supported by 193 pages of documents, collectively titled 3 "Exhibits to Rule 60 Motion," that are replete with material not properly filed in the public 4 record, see Fed. R. Civ. 5.2(a), and that the Court finds are properly filed under seal 5 without redaction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to 6 file said Exhibits under seal. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: January 8, 2021 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 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?