Green v. State of Washington

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN, CASE NO. C22-5258-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carolyn Sioux Green’s “Motion for 16 Judgment” (Dkt. No. 90). On July 7, 2022, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s pending motions 17 as moot and entered judgment remanding the case to Thurston County Superior Court, after 18 Plaintiff improperly removed her case to federal court. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 85, 86.) 19 Inasmuch as the Court can decipher, Plaintiff now seeks relief from that judgment under Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). (See Dkt. No. 90 at 1, 14.) 21 The Court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 22 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, such litigants still must meet basic procedural 23 requirements. Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, Plaintiff fails to 24 demonstrate any of the proper grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). For one, Plaintiff’s request is 25 far beyond the one-year deadline to seek relief under Rule 60(b)(1)–(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 60(c)(1). Plaintiff also fails to explain how the judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4), especially 1 where the law is clear that a plaintiff cannot remove a case to federal court. See United Student 2 Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (a judgment is void if premised on a 3 certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice 4 or the opportunity to be heard); Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche 5 Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2022) (only a party sued by the original 6 plaintiff may remove a case to federal district court). And finally, Plaintiff has not shown any 7 other extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify reopening a final judgment under Rule 8 60(b)(6). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Put simply, Plaintiff has not 9 demonstrated any of the requisite grounds for relief from the Court’s July 7, 2022, judgment 10 (Dkt. No. 86). 11 The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s “Motion for Judgment” (Dkt. No. 90). 12 DATED this 30th day of May 2025. 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26