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)

Download PDF
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

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?