Hahn v. Martin et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE denying 20 Motion to Vacate Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (SMP, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

AARON HAHN,

13-CV-5051-EFS

8
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE

9
v.
10
ROBERT MARTIN, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to
14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), ECF No. 20.

On September

15
19, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, in
16
part with prejudice, but also in part without prejudice and with leave
17
to

file

claims

in

the

Western

District

of

Washington

against

18
Defendants Waddington, Russell and Martin. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff now
19
asks this Court to vacate the dismissal Order in part and to transfer
20
this action to the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
22
Rule 60(b) provides that a party may be entitled to relief from
23
a judgment entered against it “[o]n motion and just terms ... for the
24
following

reasons:

...

(1)

mistake,

inadvertence,

surprise,

or

25
excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Mr. Hahn presents no
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE -- 1

1

facts showing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

2

that would warrant further consideration of his case.

3

Furthermore, a Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate a judgment due to

4

excusable neglect should be filed within a “reasonable time,” and in

5

no case may be filed more than a year after the judgment or order was

6

entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).

7

that the delay of almost a year in filing his motion was “reasonable.”

8

In any event, the Court notes that claims arising more than

9

three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this

10

action on April 26, 2013, would be time-barred by Washington's three-

11

year statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.080(2); Bagley

12

v.

13

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Waddington, Russell and Martin

14

arose

15

Center

16

established no basis for equitable tolling, see Millay v. Cam, 135

17

Wash.2d 193, 955 P.2d 791, 797 (1998) (“The predicates for equitable

18

tolling are bad faith, deception, or false assurances by the defendant

19

and the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff.”).

CMC

Real

while
from

Estate

Plaintiff
December

Plaintiff offers no explanation showing

Corp.,

was
2,

923

F.2d

confined
2009,

to

at

758,

the

February

760

(9th

Cir.

Washington
2010.

1991).

Corrections

Plaintiff

has

20

Therefore, the Court finds no basis to vacate the dismissal

21

order or to transfer claims which were dismissed without prejudice to

22

the

23

ORDERED:

24
25

Western

District

of

Washington.

Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate under Rule 60(b)(1) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff at his last known address.

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE -- 2

The

1

file shall remain closed.

2

decision would not be taken in good faith.

3

DATED this

8th

The Court certifies any appeal of this

day of September 2014.

4
5

s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2013\prisoner13cv5051efs-9-4-denyRule60b.docx

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE -- 3