Shawn Maxwell v. Lisa Pacione, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN MAXWELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00409 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, INDICATIVE RULING TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 13 v. JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b) 14 LISA PACIONE, et al., (Docs. 84, 87) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Shawn Maxwell, proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 April 5, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 19 The Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint (see 20 Docs. 48, 52). In July 2025, Plaintiff then filed an untimely motion, which the Court construed as 21 a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 73) The Court denied the motion and 22 dismissed the action with prejudice. (Doc. 74.) The Court found that granting Plaintiff leave to 23 file the lodged amended complaint would be futile because it failed to remedy the pleading 24 deficiencies previously identified by the Court, repeated claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman 25 Doctrine and judicial immunity and failed to adequately allege 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against 26 the County Defendants. The Court entered judgment that same day. (Doc. 75.) 27 On November 14, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 80.) Therein, the Court indicated 1 “Plaintiff addresses none of the Court’s prior analysis and provides no argument to support a 2 finding of clear error” warranting Rule 59(e) relief. (Id. at 3.) On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff 3 noticed an appeal from the judgment. (Doc. 81.) On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 4 pending Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 84.) 5 In general, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the court of jurisdiction “over those 6 aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). 7 Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s later-filed Rule 60(b) motion. However, 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 permits the Court to treat Plaintiff's motion as a request for 9 an indicative ruling. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)1; Braun–Salinas v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2015 WL 10 128040, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2015) (applying Rule 62.1 to a motion for reconsideration filed after 11 a notice of appeal). Accordingly, the Court issues this as an indicative ruling. 12 Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on 13 grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 14 evidence ...; (3) fraud ... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 15 satisfied ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 60(b). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for 17 reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 18 claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 19 grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 20 Plaintiff argues that the judgment should be set aside under Rule 60 because he recently 21 discovered that the judge handling his underlying family law case should have been automatically 22 disqualified from handling the matter and thus “lacked authority” to issue the resulting custody 23 and visitation orders. (Doc. 84 at 3.) In addition, he argues the proceedings violated his due 24 process rights. (Id.)2 None of these arguments overcome the Court’s original finding that 25 1 Rule 62.1(a) provides that “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of 26 an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the 27 motion raises a substantial issue.”

2 1 | Plaintiffs attempts to challenge the state court’s actions are barred by Rooker-Feldman and 2 | judicial immunity. (See Docs. 74, 80.) Because the arguments raised are without merit, the Court 3 | issues an indicative ruling to DENY the Rule 60(b) motion. 4 Plaintiff has also moved to strike the County Defendants’ opposition to his Rule 60(b) 5 | motion on the ground that he was not served with that filing. (Doc. 87.) That motion is DENIED 6 | AS MOOT because the Court did not need to consider the opposition in reaching the above 7 | conclusion. 8 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 For the reasons set forth above: 10 (1) Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion is construed as a request for an indicative ruling 11 under Rule 62.1(a). 12 (2) So construed, the Court issues an indicative ruling that Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) 13 motion (Doc. 84) is DENIED. 14 (3) Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 87) the County Defendants’ opposition is 15 DENIED AS MOOT. 16 (4) The case shall remain CLOSED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ February 23, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28