Campbell v. Obama et al

Filing 212

ORDER DENYING #211 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FILED MARCH 17, 2017. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/20/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/24/2017: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KENNETH L. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 BARACK OBAMA, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 14-cv-03071-BLF Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FILED MARCH 17, 2017 [Re: ECF 211] 12 13 On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Address Change Including 14 15 Petition for Relief Under Rule 70, FRCP.” See ECF 21. In that document, Plaintiff requests that 16 the Court: (1) substitute President Donald Trump as defendant in place of former President 17 Barack Obama; (2) reconsider its March 18, 2016 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 18 Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Ad Litem; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Medical 19 Examination; and Lifting Stay; (3) and grant Plaintiff temporary and immediate relief in the form 20 of appointment of an ombudsman/patient advocate to serve as his guardian ad litem. Plaintiff’s request to substitute President Donald Trump in place of former President 21 22 Barack Obama is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). That rule provides that 23 “when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to 24 hold office while the action is pending,” the officer’s successor automatically is substituted as a 25 party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (emphasis added). Judgment was entered in this case on March 18, 26 2016, and Plaintiff did not file an appeal. Judgment, ECF 210. Because the action was no longer 27 “pending” when Donald J. Trump became the President, no substitution is necessary under Rule 28 25(d). 1 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of this Court’s denial of his request 2 for appointment of a guardian ad litem, the Court’s Civil Local Rules provide that a party may 3 seek reconsideration before entry of judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9. As noted above, judgment has been 4 entered in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is untimely. Plaintiff 5 states that his request is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70. That rule, which is 6 titled “Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act,” does not provide any basis for relief from this 7 Court’s prior orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 70. It may be that Plaintiff intended to seek relief under 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), reciting “Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, 9 or Proceeding.” However, Plaintiff has not articulated any basis for relief under Rule 60(b). 10 Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s request for immediate appointment of an United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ombudsman/patient advocate to serve as his guardian ad litem, that request is denied on the basis 12 that this case has been closed for a year. 13 Plaintiff indicates an intention to file additional documents in this case. This Court is 14 without power to grant Plaintiff any relief in this case, unless and until Plaintiff provides a basis 15 for setting aside the judgment, which he has not done. 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for relief filed March 17, 2017 is DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 Dated: March 20, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 22 23 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?