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)

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)