Ramirez v. State of Washington et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS; denying 19 Motion to Arrest Judgment; denying 20 Motion to Vacate Judgment. The Court certifies that an appeal of thisdecision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CV, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
MANUEL RAMIREZ,
7

NO: 4:14-CV-05123-RMP
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

8
v.
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON and DOE,
10
Defendants.
11
12

BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion to Arrest Judgment, ECF No.

13

19, and his Motion to Vacate Judgment, ECF No. 20, noted for hearing on August

14

17, 2015. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Clallam Bay Corrections Center, is proceeding

15

pro se and in forma pauperis; Defendants have not been served. The Motions

16

were considered without oral argument on the date signed below.

17

By Order filed June 29, 2015, the Court dismissed Mr. Ramirez’s Amended

18

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but

19

without prejudice to challenging the fact or duration of his confinement in

20

appropriate state court and habeas proceedings, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff appears to

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 1

1

assert that the dismissal of his complaint constitutes “treason,” because he claims

2

that “terrorist [sic] were involved in the case.” These assertions are without merit.

3

In addition, the concept of “arrest of judgment” is applicable in the criminal

4

context. See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 34. This was a civil rights action pursuant to 42

5

U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, ITS IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Arrest

6

Judgment, ECF No. 19 is DENIED as moot.

7

To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment can be construed as a

8

Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), he has failed to

9

present any facts warranting alteration or amendment. Plaintiff asserts that he is in

10

prison, his life is in danger, and he has important issues he needs to address to the

11

court. Nevertheless, although granted the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff did not

12

present any facts in his Amended Complaint which would “plausibly give rise to

13

an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

14

A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "should not be

15

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented

16

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening

17

change in the controlling law." McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

18

Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

19

(9th Cir. 1999)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff has not presented

20

the type of newly discovered evidence or other "extraordinary circumstance" that

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 2

1

would warrant disturbing the judgment. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254-

2

55 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate

3

Judgment, ECF No. 20, is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

5

Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff. The Court certifies that an appeal of this

6

decision would not be taken in good faith. The file shall remain closed.

7

DATED this 20th day of August 2015.

8
9

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 3