Bruzzone v. McManis et al

Filing 89

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 85 MOTION to Vacate. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2023)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,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

v.

10

JAMES MCMANIS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01235-PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE
Re: Dkt. No. 85

12
13
14

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to vacate. The matter is fully briefed and

15

suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

16

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

17

the court hereby rules as follows.

18

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

19

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

20

The court’s final judgment in this case is thus over five (5) years old, affirmed by the Ninth

21

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

22

2018 WL 5734546, at (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018), aff’d, 785 F. App’x 503 (9th Cir. 2019),

23

cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 283.

24

In August 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for “reexamination” pursuant to Federal

25

Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 60(b)(2). Dkt. 71. The court denied the motion, finding

26

that it was untimely, and that even if had been timely filed, it did not contain any new facts

27

that would meet the requirements of Rules 52 or 60. See Dkt. 77 at 2. The court’s order

28

also specifically stated that “[t]he court will not entertain any motions for reconsideration

1
2

Plaintiff has now filed a “motion to vacate” under Rule 60. Dkt. 85. As with

3

plaintiff’s motion for “reexamination,” plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and even if it had been

4

timely filed, it does not contain any new facts that meet the requirements of Rule 60. See

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (deadline to file a motion under this rule based on alleged

6

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

7

judgment).

8

Therefore, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

of this order.” Id.

12

Dated: December 15, 2023
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2