Rodriguez v. Greco et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 8/11/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

GLORIA RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No. 16-cv-550-BAS(RBB)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

[ECF No. 18]

MATT GRECO, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Northern District of

21

California seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to a charge of making false

22

statements in order to obtain unemployment benefits. On March 2, 2016, this action

23

was transferred to the Southern District of California. Plaintiff now moves for relief

24

from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

25

Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a

26

motion under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend

27

a judgment) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from

28

judgment). See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993).
–1–

16cv550

1

Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a

2

showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d

3

1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560

4

F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration

5

based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

6

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before

7

the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

8

judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

60(b). That last prong is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

10

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a

11

party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay

12

v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007).

13

Though Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment related to the March 2, 2016

14

transfer order, no judgment has been entered in this action. Plaintiff mostly appears

15

to argue for the substantive relief she seeks in her complaint, none of which has been

16

litigated or foreclosed. Following the transfer, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request

17

to proceed in forma pauperis, and a summons was issued. Plaintiff need only serve

18

the complaint now to proceed with her litigation. Consequently, there are no grounds

19

for relief to be sought under Rule 60(b) for relief from judgment.

20
21
22

Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the
Court DENIES the motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 18.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: August 11, 2016

25
26
27
28
–2–

16cv550