Bates v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 86

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denying 72 Motion for Relief from Judgment.(rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

FEDERICK BATES,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE et al.,

[Re Docket No. 72]
Defendants.
Plaintiff Frederick Bates moves this court to reopen his case, in which judgment was entered

18

in July 2008 after the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 31.

19

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in November 2009. See Dkt. No. 38. Recently Bates

20

began a campaign to reopen his case. In February, he moved this court to vacate its summary

21

judgment order under Rule 60. See Dkt. No. 43. The court denied the motion, and Bates is now

22

appealing the court’s decision. See Dkt. No. 62. Now, Bates again moves the court for relief from

23

judgment, this time based on the allegedly improper dismissal of defendant Tucker Younis. The

24

court again denies his motion for the reasons explained below.

25

Bates moves to reopen his case under Rule 60 sections (b)(4) and (b)(6) as well as section

26

(d)(3). A party moving under Rule 60(b) and its subsections must move within a “reasonable time.”

27

Because the court finds that five years is not a reasonable amount of time, it denies the motion as to

28

sections (b)(4) and (b)(6).
ORDER
Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
SW

-1-

1

Bates also moves to reopen his case under section (d)(3), which is not limited by the

2

reasonable time requirement. See Rule 60(d). However, fraud on the court is an extraordinary

3

remedy only appropriate for fraud that “defile[s] the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers

4

of the court.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006). Fraud

5

on the court “should be read narrowly, in the interest of preserving the finality of judgments.” Id. at

6

1104 (quoting Toscano v. Comm'r, 441 F.2d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 1971)). A court should only vacate a

7

judgment for fraud on the court if the moving party establishes fraud by “clear and convincing

8

evidence.” United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443 (9th Cir. 2011). “Not all fraud is

9

fraud on the court.” Id. at 444 (quoting In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999)). To

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

be fraud on the court, the fraud must “undermined the workings of the adversary process itself.” Id.

11

at 445.

12

Even if Bates claims are true, the adversary process itself has not been undermined. Bates

13

claims that his lawyer stipulated to dismiss Tuck Younis, the Assistant Chief of Police, from the

14

case without his knowledge or authorization. Bates claims this was fraud upon the court. This

15

dismissal, however, did not end the case or prevent the adversary process from working. After

16

Younis was dismissed, the case proceeded to summary judgment. The court granted summary

17

judgment for the remaining individual defendants, Chief of Police, Robert Davis, and former

18

Deputy Chief Adonna Amoroso, because qualified immunity shielded them. The court found that

19

“a reasonable official under the same circumstances would not know that her conduct violated

20

Bates’s right to a good cause hearing.” Dkt. No. 30 at 7. The same reasoning would have applied to

21

Younis and thus the adversary process has not been undermined.

22

Bates has also failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court. The

23

only evidence he offers is a self-serving declaration. Coming five years after the court entered

24

judgment, Bates’s declaration is insufficient to meet his high burden.

25
26
27

Dated: December 11, 2013

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

28
ORDER
Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
SW

-2-