Houston v. City of Carson et al

Filing 22

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 KEITH DAVID HOUSTON, 8 9 10 Case No. 3:14-cv-00687-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, ORDER v. CITY OF CARSON, et al., Defendants. 11 12 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in an Order issued on August 27, 2015. (ECF 13 No. 18.) Judgment was entered on August 27, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) On December 27, 14 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). 15 (ECF No. 21.) 16 In order to preserve the finality of judgments, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 limit a party's ability to seek relief from a final judgment. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 18 1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Rule 60(b)(4) allows a party to seek relief from judgment if the 19 judgment is void. In determining whether to grant relief from a judgment, a court may 20 consider whether (1) the intervening change in law overruled an otherwise settled legal 21 precedent in petitioner's favor; (2) the petitioner was diligent in pursuing the issue; (3) the 22 final judgment caused one or more of the parties to change his position in reliance on the 23 judgment; (4) there is delay between the finality of the judgment and the motion for Rule 24 60(b)(6) relief; (5) there is a close connection between the original and intervening 25 decisions at issue in the Rule 60(b) motion; and (6) relief from judgment would upset the 26 principles of comity governing the interaction between coordinate sovereign judicial 27 systems. Phelps, 569 F.3d at 1135-40 (involving a motion made under Rule 60(b)(6) 28 based on a change in controlling law). 1 Plaintiff reasserts his previous argument that he did not complain about a 2 conviction, but that he was challenging deprivation of his freedom “without being 3 convicted at all.” (ECF No. 21 at 3.) He argues that the Court ignore this factual allegation 4 in this Complaint. However, as the Court found in the dismissal Order, the fact that Plaintiff 5 alleges he was not convicted but that Defendant made misrepresentation about his 6 conviction based upon a guilty plea does not render Heck inapplicable. (ECF No. 18 at 7 3.) Plaintiff makes no showing to entitlement of relief from judgment. 8 9 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 21) is denied. 10 11 DATED THIS 13th day of January 2017. 12 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?