Acedo v. Superior Court of the State of California et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration (FRCP 60) re 3 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/10/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DANIEL ACEDO, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 Case No. 15-cv-2969-BAS(JMA) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. [ECF No. 15] SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 On March 30, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 21 pauperis and dismissed this action sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 22 and 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 3.) 23 Judgment was entered accordingly the same day. (ECF No. 4.) After pursuing an 24 appeal that was ultimately dismissed by the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff 25 now moves for reconsideration of the March 30, 2016 Order under Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 60(b). 27 Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a 28 motion under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend –1– 15cv2969 1 a judgment) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from 2 judgment). See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a 4 showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 5 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 6 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration 7 based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly 8 discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before 9 the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 10 judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 60(b). That last prong is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 12 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a 13 party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay 14 v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007). 15 Plaintiff summarizes the bases for the relief sought as follows: (1) “This court 16 should use the soverign [sic] power to recall its decision to dismiss. This soverign 17 [sic] power is warranted as the court did not provide notice as to wether [sic] this 18 court dismiss[es] the complaint or the action and it appears that the court dismissed 19 the complaint” (Pl.’s Mot. 2:21-3:1 (citations omitted)); and (2) “This court did not 20 specifically provide that it ‘dismissed the action’ and the judgement [sic] does not 21 provide that this court ‘dismissed the action’ therefore Plaintiff has a right to amend 22 or should be given the right to amend” (Pl.’s Mot. 3:3-11 (citation omitted)). Both 23 arguments lack merit. 24 The March 30, 2016 Order unequivocally states that the Court dismissed this 25 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Furthermore, despite 26 Plaintiff’s interpretation, entry of judgment indicates a “court’s final determination 27 of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case.” See Judgment, Black’s Law 28 Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). In other words, the judgment entered in this case signifies –2– 15cv2969 1 that this action has come to an end, in this case, in favor of Defendants. There is no 2 ambiguity in either the March 30, 2016 Order or the judgment suggesting otherwise. 3 Plaintiff was served and given notice of the reasons for dismissal, and judgment was 4 entered accordingly. 5 6 7 Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the Court DENIES the motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 15.) IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: April 10, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –3– 15cv2969

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?