Houston v. City of Carson et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 21 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KEITH DAVID HOUSTON,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00687-MMD-VPC
CITY OF CARSON, et al.,
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in an Order issued on August 27, 2015. (ECF
No. 18.) Judgment was entered on August 27, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) On December 27,
2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
(ECF No. 21.)
In order to preserve the finality of judgments, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
limit a party's ability to seek relief from a final judgment. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d
1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Rule 60(b)(4) allows a party to seek relief from judgment if the
judgment is void. In determining whether to grant relief from a judgment, a court may
consider whether (1) the intervening change in law overruled an otherwise settled legal
precedent in petitioner's favor; (2) the petitioner was diligent in pursuing the issue; (3) the
final judgment caused one or more of the parties to change his position in reliance on the
judgment; (4) there is delay between the finality of the judgment and the motion for Rule
60(b)(6) relief; (5) there is a close connection between the original and intervening
decisions at issue in the Rule 60(b) motion; and (6) relief from judgment would upset the
principles of comity governing the interaction between coordinate sovereign judicial
systems. Phelps, 569 F.3d at 1135-40 (involving a motion made under Rule 60(b)(6)
based on a change in controlling law).
Plaintiff reasserts his previous argument that he did not complain about a
conviction, but that he was challenging deprivation of his freedom “without being
convicted at all.” (ECF No. 21 at 3.) He argues that the Court ignore this factual allegation
in this Complaint. However, as the Court found in the dismissal Order, the fact that Plaintiff
alleges he was not convicted but that Defendant made misrepresentation about his
conviction based upon a guilty plea does not render Heck inapplicable. (ECF No. 18 at
3.) Plaintiff makes no showing to entitlement of relief from judgment.
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 21)
DATED THIS 13th day of January 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?