Campbell v. Struffert et al

Filing 120

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 119 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SENARBLE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-05084-HSG (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.
W. STRUFFERT, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 119

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Senarble Campbell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for

14

relief from the judgment entered in this court on March 22, 2016 granting defendants’ motion for

15

summary judgment. See Docket Nos. 117 & 118. The motion is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of

16

Civil Procedure 60(b).

17

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be made

18

within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one year after the

19

judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)-(c). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration

20

where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

21

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered

22

before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

23

judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School

24

Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

25

Plaintiff does not indicate under what provision of Rule 60(b) reconsideration is warranted.

26

But because plaintiff essentially argues that the Court should not have accepted defendants’

27

testimony, his motion best fits under Rule 60(b)(1), which provides for relief from judgment on

28

the grounds of mistake. The motion must be denied for two reasons. First, plaintiff did not file

1

the motion within one year from the date judgment was entered. Second, plaintiff’s motion fails

2

to make the showing required under Rule 60(b) or otherwise to show good cause for

3

reconsideration. In short, plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s ruling, and merely repeats arguments

4

which the Court has already considered and rejected. Rule 60(b) should not be used as a substitute

5

for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century - Fox

6

Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for

7

relied from judgment is DENIED.

8

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

9

This order terminates Docket No. 119.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/8/2017

12
13
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2