Baugh v. Holder et al

Filing 66

Opinion and Order - Plaintiff's Motion Request for an Immediate District Court Ruling on Federal Rule 60(b) Recusal Motion (Dkt. 63 ) is DENIED. All other pending motions and objections are DENIED as moot. Signed on 12/10/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD M. BAUGH,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00561-ST

Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ERIC HOLDER, et. al.,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald M. Baugh’s Motion Request for an Immediate
District Court Ruling on Federal Rule 60(b) Recusal Motion. For the following reasons,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs reconsideration of final orders of the
district court. Rule 60(b) allows a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order
for the following reasons: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ... by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A

PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). What
amounts to a “reasonable time” is dependent upon the facts of the case. See Ashford v. Stewart,
657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981); In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 249 (9th Cir.
1989). In determining what is reasonable, courts should “tak[e] into consideration the interest of
finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds
relied upon, and prejudice to other parties.” Ashford, 657 F.2d at 1055. The party making the
Rule 60(b) motion bears the burden of proof. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S.
367, 383 (1992).
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2013, in accordance with the pre-filing Order in Baugh v. Mukasey, No. 3:08CV-1453-PK, United States District Judge Anna Brown reviewed the Complaint filed by
plaintiff Ronald Baugh in this case, determined that it was “frivolous and/or repetitive” and
directed the Clerk of Court “to close this matter as improvidently filed” (Dkt. 13). After a series
of appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Baugh filed a Request for Certification and
Mailing of Disposition Order (Dkt. 33), asking this court to remand this case to state court. On
July 18, 2014, this court adopted United States Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and
Recommendations (Dkt. 36), denying that request (Dkt. 44). On August 26, 2014, Baugh filed a
Motion for Post-Judgment Federal Rule 60(b) Relief (Dkt. 49). On September 18, 2014, Baugh
filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 57) from Judge Brown's dismissal and the July 18 Order. Because
of the pending appeal, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Judgment Federal Rule 60(b)
Relief (Dkt. 49) for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. 58). On October 28, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On November 10, 2014, Baugh filed the
pending motion (Dkt. 63), styled as a “Motion Request for an Immediate District Court Ruling
on Federal Rule 60(b) Recusal Motion.”
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that, because his previous appeals have now been dismissed by the Ninth
Circuit, the Court no longer lacks jurisdiction to rule on his motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief
(Dkt. 49). Assuming, arguendo, that the Court has jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s motion, the
Court declines to address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion because that motion was untimely filed.
Plaintiff, in a 121-page brief, argues that he is entitled to relief from the final judgment
dismissing his case because Judge Brown failed to recuse herself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
“after [Judge Brown] lost the appearance of impartiality.” On May 2, 2013, in accordance with
the pre-filing Order in Baugh v. Mukasey, No. 3:08-CV-1453-PK, Judge Brown dismissed
Plaintiff’s Complaint and directed the Clerk of Court to close this matter as improvidently filed.
(Dkt. 13). Plaintiff, however, did not file his Motion for Rule 60(b) relief (Dkt. 49) until August
26, 2014, more than one year after Judge Brown’s order. In the intervening months, Plaintiff
attempted to file a series of appeals with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which were
unsuccessful. (Dkts. 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32). Plaintiff also filed multiple motions and letters
during this time. Accordingly, there is no excuse for Plaintiff’s 15-month delay in requesting
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. See Lemoge v.
United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 2009); Million (Far E.) Ltd. v. Lincoln Provisions
Inc. USA, 581 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (“Even accounting for [defendant’s]
pro se status, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion was
untimely” because “[defendant] filed the motion almost eight months after judgment was
entered”).

PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion Request for an Immediate District Court Ruling on Federal Rule 60(b)
Recusal Motion (Dkt. 63) is DENIED. All other pending motions and objections are DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of December, 2014.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER