Arellano v. Blahnik

Filing 121

ORDER Denying Rule 60(b) Motion [Doc. No. 119 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 9/27/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARRELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-DHB Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION [Doc. No. 119] BLAHNIK, Defendant. 15 16 17 On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion: Fed.R. 60(b), which is deemed a 18 motion for relief from order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). [Doc. 19 No. 119.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 20 A. Legal Standard. 21 Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 22 of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 23 (9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final 24 judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 25 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 26 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by the adverse party; 27 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and other reason justifying 28 relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a motion brought under it 1 16cv2412-CAB-DHB 1 “must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a 2 year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 60(c). 4 B. Discussion. 5 Here, Plaintiff does not identify which ground for relief he seeks, nor does he state 6 a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). Rather, Plaintiff repeats the same argument he has 7 made numerous times that he should be allowed to seek damages for wrongful 8 incarceration for his access-to-court claim because it is a “backward-looking” claim 9 under Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413, 414 n.11 (2002). [Doc. No. 119 at 1.] 10 The Supreme Court recognizes “two categories” of access-to-courts claims: 11 “forward-looking” and “backward-looking.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 413, 12 414 n.11 (2002). “Forward-looking” claims—often brought as prisoner class actions— 13 involve “systemic official action” that “frustrates a plaintiff or plaintiff class in preparing 14 and filing suits at the present time.” Id. at 413. The goal of forward-looking claims is 15 injunctive relief “to place the plaintiff in a position to pursue a separate claim for relief 16 once the frustrating condition has been removed.” Id. By contrast, “backward-looking” 17 claims cover “specific litigation [that] ended poorly,” or that was never commenced, due 18 to official interference. Id. at 413-14. The goal of this species of claim is monetary relief 19 for the prior thwarted lawsuit. 20 This Court understands that Plaintiff is seeking to bring a “backward-looking” 21 claim under Christopher v. Harbury. What Plaintiff apparently refuses to accept is that 22 this Court has ruled that the monetary damages he might be awarded for such claim 23 cannot include damages for wrongful incarceration, as that would violate Heck v. 24 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). However, Plaintiff is free to seek other damages for his 25 “backward-looking” claim, as set forth in this Court’s order of August 17, 2017. [See 26 Doc. No. 16 at 8.] As this Court has informed Plaintiff numerous times [See Doc. Nos. 27 21, 41, 46, 115], if Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s ruling as to the issue of 28 2 16cv2412-CAB-DHB 1 recoverable damages for his “backward-looking claim,” he is free to appeal that ruling to 2 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the appropriate time. 3 C. Conclusion. 4 For the reasons set forth above, the motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure 60(b) is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 27, 2019 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 16cv2412-CAB-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?