Campbell v. Garza

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02231
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Valetta Marie Campbell, No. CV 21-02231-PHX-2231-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Krystal Garza, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 8). 16 I. Background 17 On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff Valetta Marie Campbell, who is not in custody, 18 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to 19 Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees. By Order dated February 16, 2022, the Court 20 noted that this was the second such action1 that Plaintiff had filed related to her underlying 21 state criminal proceedings,2 and thus dismissed this case without prejudice pursuant to 22 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).3 Judgment was entered the same day (Doc 6). 23

24 1 See 21 CV-01761-PHX-JAT (CDB) (D. Ariz. 2021). That action was dismissed 25 on November 9, 2021. 26 2 See Maricopa County Superior Court Criminal Docket (available at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?case 27 Number=CR2021-114989) (last visited April 11, 2022). 28 3 The Court also found that the Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it was not clear whom Plaintiff had named as a Defendant or what claim(s) she had made against them. 1 On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 8), which the 2 Court construes as a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 II. Governing Standard 5 Rule 60(b), which sets forth the grounds for relief from judgment, “provides for 6 reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; 7 (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged 8 judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” School Dist. 9 No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 10 omitted). The moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of a basis for Rule 11 60(b) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the 12 moving party’s factual allegations are to be accepted as true, mere legal conclusions, 13 general denials, or simple assertions are insufficient to justify overturning the underlying 14 judgment. Id. 15 “[A] party merits relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates ‘extraordinary 16 circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case.” Cmty. 17 Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). To show extraordinary 18 circumstances, the party must “demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 19 control that prevented him from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action 20 in a proper fashion.” Id. 21 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the Complaint, and its February 16, 2022 22 Order, and finds no basis to reconsider its prior Order or to reopen this case. Plaintiff has 23 not demonstrated that she is entitled to relief under any of the provisions of Rule 60(b); 24 indeed, she does not identify any particular portion of Rule 60 or explain why she is entitled 25 to relief under Rule 60. Rather, her Motion largely repeats the arguments presented in her 26 Complaint, which the Court has already determined to be barred by Younger. Accordingly, 27 Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied, and this action shall remain closed. 28 . . . . ITIS ORDERED: 2 (1) Plaintiff's Motion to reopen Case (Doc. 8) is denied. 3 (2) This action must remain closed. 4 Dated this 15th day of April, 2022. 5

g James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-