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)
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?