Card v. Union City Police Department

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05613
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 23-cv-05613-AMO (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

10 UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 13 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Lee Card’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 13. 13 Card challenges the Court’s May 7, 2024 dismissal of this action. Id. Card also filed a notice of 14 appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 18. The Ninth Circuit has since dismissed 15 the appeal and issued its mandate. Dkts. 20, 21. 16 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration only upon 17 a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 18 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; 19 (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or 20 (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Subparagraph (6) requires a 21 showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s 22 order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See 23 Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 24 Here, Card does not make a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 25 neglect. He does not set forth any newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any grounds for finding 26 that the judgment is void or has been satisfied. Nor does he set forth any other reason justifying 27 relief. Instead, Card states that he “believes the Court erred” in dismissing his action. Dkt. 13 at 1 10. Thus, it seems that Card is arguing that the decision of the Court was wrong. See id. at 10-11. 2 || While such arguments may be properly advanced on appeal, they are not a basis for 3 reconsideration. See Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. Steccone, 205 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1953) 4 (finding that “[t]he procedure provided by rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal”). In any 5 event, as mentioned above, the Ninth Circuit has dismissed Card’s appeal. Thus, there is no 6 || reason to warrant reconsideration. His motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. 13. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 21, 2025 9 HO - 10 : ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28