Bruzzone v. McManis et al

Filing 77

Order DENYING 71 plaintiff's motion for reexamination. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on September 7, 2022. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2022)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

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 18-cv-01235-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER

10

JAMES MCMANIS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 71

12
13
14

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reexamination. The matter is fully briefed

15

and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for

16

September 22, 2022, is VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

17

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,

18

the court hereby rules as follows.

19

On October 31, 2018, this court entered judgment and terminated this case. Dkt.

20

59. On the same date, the court entered an order imposing pre-filing review. Dkt. 58.

21

The court’s final judgment in this case is thus nearly four (4) years old, affirmed by the

22

Ninth Circuit, with writ of certiorari denied. See Bruzzone v. McManis, No. 18-cv-01235-

23

PJH, 2018 WL 5734546, at (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018), aff’d, 785 F. App’x 503 (9th Cir.

24

2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 283. Plaintiff now moves for “reexamination” pursuant to

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 60(b)(2). Dkt. 71.

26

Rule 52(a) permits a party to file a motion to amend the findings or make

27

additional findings, and to amend the judgment accordingly. But Rule 52(b) provides,

28

“On a party’s motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may

1

amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment

2

accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). The time to bring a motion for relief under this rule

3

has long passed.

4
5

judgment. The outer deadline to file a motion under this rule based on alleged mistakes,

6

newly discovered evidence, fraud, or misconduct is one year from the date of judgment.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Thus, the time to bring this motion under Rule 60 has similarly

8

passed.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 also allows a party to move for relief from a

Not only is plaintiff’s motion untimely, but even if it were timely filed, it does not

10

contain any new facts that would meet the requirements of Rules 52 or 60. Therefore,

11

the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. The court will not entertain any motions for

12

reconsideration of this order.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: September 7, 2022
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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