Moralez v. Davis

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: 5:20-cv-07860
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUDOLPH MORALEZ, 11 Case No. 20-07860 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 13

14 RON DAVIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket No. 29) 17

18 On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 198 against San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) Warden Ron 20 Davis, among others. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff was twice granted leave to amend to correct 21 various deficiencies in the pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 10, 13. However, the second amended 22 complaint again failed to remedy the deficiencies from the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 23 14. Therefore, on September 24, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to 24 state a claim for which relief can be granted, and entered judgment the same day. Dkt. 25 Nos. 27, 28. 26 On June 12, 2024, nearly three years later, Plaintiff filed a motion for 27 reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) and (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Motion for Reconsideration 3 Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after 4 dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either 5 on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from 6 judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. 7 Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions for reconsideration 8 should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a 9 means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film 10 Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that 11 justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of 12 new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid 13 Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 14 United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 15 Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be 16 made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one 17 year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) of the Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following 19 is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 20 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s 21 decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the 22 judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Id.; School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 23 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds 24 justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that 25 the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth 26 Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Motions for 1 for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Id. 2 The Court first notes that it doubtful that filing this Rule 60(b) motion over three 3 years after judgment has been entered can be considered a “reasonable time.” But even if 4 timeliness is not an issue, Plaintiff must show that the grounds justifying relief are 5 extraordinary to obtain relief under subparagraph (6). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision 6 that is available only when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are inapplicable, and only when 7 extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the case. Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 8 1856, 1861 (2022); United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005). “It 9 has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be 10 utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 11 action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 12 Thus, to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must establish “both injury and 13 circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding in a proper fashion.” 14 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 15 Plaintiff asserts that he has a learning disability in the “area of… written language” 16 that prevented him from generating an appropriate complaint against state employees for 17 the violation of his civil rights due to the Covid-19 outbreak at SQSP. Dkt. No. 29 at 3. 18 He asserts generally that he was wholly incapable of producing a competent complaint and 19 lacked competent help to do so “until now.” Id. at 4. 20 The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish that circumstances beyond his 21 control prevented him from proceeding in a proper fashion. First, the attached papers 22 indicate that Plaintiff was assessed with a learning disability as far back as 2007 and 23 received accommodations for this disability in prison. Dkt. No. 29 at 7-13. Accordingly, 24 Plaintiff was clearly aware of this disability long before he filed this action in 2020, and it 25 did not prevent him from initiating such an action. Plaintiff also provides a letter from an 26 attorney dated February 3, 2022, advising him about the status of the class action which his 1 || attorney advised Plaintiff that he and his firm had removed themselves from the case 2 || before state court and for Plaintiff to seek another attorney to pursue his claims in federal 3 || court. Jd. The attorney also advised Plaintiff about filing a timely action in federal court 4 || (2 years from the date of injury) after properly exhausting administrative remedies. /d. at 5 || 18. Despite this advice, Plaintiff still waited over two years before filing the instant 6 || motion for reconsideration to reopen this action. Plaintiff provides no explanation for the 7 || lengthy delay in filing this motion nor has he established that his long-existing learning 8 || disability was a “circumstance beyond his control” that prevented him from doing so. 9 || Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 10 11 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. E 13 || Plaintiff may appeal this matter to the Ninth Circuit. S 14 This order terminates Docket No. 29. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Z 16 || Dated: June 20, 2024 felinfhacncan __ BETH LABSON FREEMAN = "7 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Motion for Recon. PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\07860Moralez_recon 26 27