Clark et al v. Ahern et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/6/2024. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOUREECE STONE CLARK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
GREGORY J. AHERN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 22-cv-06171-JSC

12
13

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without representation by an attorney, filed this

14

civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was dismissed as frivolous. (ECF No. 7.)

15

Plaintiff has filed “grounds” for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, which the Court construes as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

17

(ECF No. 10.)

18

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1)

19

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

20

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse

21

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying

22

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

23

Motions for reconsideration should be limited to extraordinary circumstances; they are not a

24

substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth

25

Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

26

Plaintiff has not alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect in the dismissal order,

27

presented newly discovered evidence, or shown fraud by Defendants or that the judgment is void

28

or satisfied; nor has Plaintiff shown any other reason justifying relief from the judgment of

1
2
3

Plaintiff alleges:

8

Defendant(s) Yesenia L. Sanchez, Alameda County Sherriff Dept.,
et al., and Al Kashikar received my conditional acceptance for value
without prejudice for ten days for failure to state a claim for which
relief can be granted. Defendants is liable for the taxes and debts for
account no. [] etc. and is unlawfully holding me liable through
adhesion contracts to answer is fraudulent inducement performing in
bad faith with willful misconduct in their performance as a bonded
servants. I need the request for validation of debt pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1692(g) and to provide me with competent evidence that I
have any obligation to legally pay the defendants with my wet ink
signature/autograph.

9

(ECF No. 10 at 1.) Like the allegations in the complaint, these allegations are not comprehensible.

4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

dismissal.

10

(See ECF No. 7 at 3:5-17.) Yesenia Sanchez is not a Defendant, and it is not clear what

11

“conditional acceptance of value” Plaintiff gave Defendants or how or why it was “dismissed.”

12

(Id.) Plaintiff does not explain, nor is it apparent, how or why any Defendant is liable for his taxes

13

or “debts,” what the “account number” he cites refers to, what “adhesion contracts” Defendants

14

formed with him, what “fraudulent inducement,” “bad faith,” or “willful misconduct” Defendants

15

engaged in, or how Defendants are “bonded servants.” (Id.) Plaintiff cites to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g,

16

which imposes disclosure requirements upon “debt collectors,” but he does not explain which, if

17

any, of the Defendants are debt collectors. (Id.) Consequently, the motion for reconsideration

18

under Rule 60(b) is DENIED.

19

This order resolves docket number 10.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: February 6, 2024

22
23
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2