Ivie v. United States of America et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/2/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES E. IVIE,

CASE NO. 15cv266-LAB (NLS)
Plaintiff,

12
vs.
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Charles Ivie, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint on February 9, 2015 along

18

with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He claimed Forest Service employees wrongly

19

issued him a citation for having unleashed dogs on a hiking trail in the Cleveland National

20

Forest, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.16(j). On February 17, the Court found his application

21

to proceed in forma pauperis incomplete and denied it, as well as dismissing his complaint

22

with prejudice.

23

On April 20, the Court received a second document from Ivie, which it rejected for

24

filing. The document’s purposes were not entirely clear, but it did not appear to be seeking

25

reconsideration or relief from the judgment. Rather, he appeared to be warning Forest

26

Service employees not to try to cite him or enforce leash laws. For example, on a copy of the

27

Clerk’s judgment, Ivie circled the statement that the complaint was dismissed with prejudice,

28

and hand-wrote "Good. Yes, do not come at me again." (Docket no. 5-1.)

-1-

15cv266

1

On May 27, the Court received a second post-judgment document from Ivie. He

2

attached a copy of the discrepancy order, circling the Court’s order that the document was

3

being rejected, and hand-writing "Good. Stay away from me." This bolsters the Court’s

4

conclusion that Ivie did not intend his earlier submission as a motion for relief from judgment.

5

But, unlike the previous submission, this latest document appeared to seek

6

reconsideration, after a fashion. It purports to reopen the case, and to award Ivie $50,000

7

in damages. Concurrently with this order, the Court is accepting that document for filing as

8

a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

9

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide two avenues for seeking reconsideration

10

from a final judgment. Ordinarily, a litigant would file a motion seeking relief under Rule 59.

11

But such a motion must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

12

59(e), and Ivie waited much longer than that.1 The only other rule providing for relief is Rule

13

60, whose time limits are more lenient. See Rule 60(c)(1). The Court therefore construes the

14

document as a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. A motion under this Rule does not

15

affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation. See Rule 60(c)(2). And in this case,

16

a motion (regardless of whether construed as a Rule 59 or 60 motion) filed months after entry

17

of judgment does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

18

4(a)(4)(A).

19

The motion provides no adequate basis for revisiting the judgment. As the Court

20

originally pointed out, Ivie’s remedy when he was cited was to appear in court and challenge

21

the citation, not simply to sue for damages. Others have successfully challenged citations

22

and avoided being fined.

23

Furthermore, although the Court did not note it earlier, Ivie’s claims appear to be

24

barred by the Heck doctrine. That doctrine holds that if a criminal conviction arising out of the

25

same facts stands and is fundamentally inconsistent with the allegedly unlawful behavior for

26

which a civil rights suit is filed, the civil rights action must be dismissed. Smithart v. Towery,

27
28

1

The first document, which was rejected, was received 62 days after entry of
judgment, while the second was received 99 days after entry of judgment.
-2-

15cv266

1

79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). A claim that

2

officers brought unfounded charges falls squarely within the Heck doctrine, until the

3

underlying criminal conviction has been reversed, expunged, or vacated by writ of habeas

4

corpus. See Smithart at 953 (finding "no question" that Heck barred plaintiff’s claim that

5

defendants brought unfounded criminal charges against him).

6
7
8
9

Ivie’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED and no more motions seeking to
revisit the judgment will be accepted or considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 2, 2015

10
11

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

15cv266