Rodriguez v. Stall et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's 14 Motion for Relief from Judgment. The Clerk of court shall close the file. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/9/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Inmate Booking No. 14745493, Civil 14cv2646 LAB (DHB) No. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT S. STALL, et al., 15 (ECF No. 14) Defendants. 16 17 18 I. Procedural History 19 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail, is proceeding 20 pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2015, this Court 21 dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failing to state a claim 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 11.) The Court also 23 denied Plaintiff leave to amend on the ground that it was futile. (Id.) On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend Judgment and/or 24 25 Relief from Judgment” pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). (ECF No. 14.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv2646-Deny 60(b).wpd, 101315 1 14cv2646 LAB (DHB) 1 II. Plaintiff’s Motion 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” 4 may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year 5 after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 6 60(c). 7 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; 8 or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other 9 reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, 10 B. Plaintiff’s claims 11 In Plaintiff’s FAC, he named a number of defendants including deputy district 12 attorneys, investigators with the District Attorney’s office and investigators with the State 13 of California Employment Development Department. (See FAC at 1-3.) Plaintiff raised 14 allegations pertaining to the criminal charges against him and objected to the rulings in 15 his preliminary hearing in his FAC. Plaintiff’s request for relief was an injunction 16 preventing “further prosecuting case” and “use of evidence testimonial or real.” (FAC 17 at 8.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s request would require this Court to intervene in 18 an ongoing state court proceeding and declined to do so. (ECF No. 11 at 5.) A federal 19 court cannot interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive 20 relief absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute 21 challenged is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” 22 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 53-54 (1971). 23 In Plaintiff’s Motion currently before the Court, he argues that the Court should 24 allow further amendment of his pleading because he is really seeking to add an “access 25 to courts” claim against, among others, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. 26 (Pl.’s Mot. at 3-4.) Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that while he has been housed in the 27 San Diego Central Jail, he has been denied access to photocopies and postage in order to 28 submit documents to assist his legal proceedings. (Id. at 2.) This is an entirely new and I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv2646-Deny 60(b).wpd, 101315 2 14cv2646 LAB (DHB) 1 separate claim against new defendants that were not part of the original or amended 2 complaint in this action. Plaintiff offers no justifiable reason why he did not seek to bring 3 these claims in his original pleadings or why he waited five months after judgment was 4 entered to bring these claims. It appears that many of these claims may have arisen after 5 judgment was entered in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from 6 Judgment is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to raise new claims against new defendants, 7 he should file a separate action. 8 III. 9 10 Conclusion and Order Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion brought pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60 (ECF No. 14) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 11 The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 DATED: October 9, 2015 15 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv2646-Deny 60(b).wpd, 101315 3 14cv2646 LAB (DHB)

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?