Watkins v. Cowlitz County Diking Service

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JOSEPH MALLOY WATKINS, Case No. 3:23-cv-05785-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. 10 COWLITZ COUNTY DIKING SERVICE, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 ORDER 15 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Joseph Malloy Watkins’s Motion for Relief from 16 Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 40. The Court previously granted 17 Defendant’s motion to dismiss Mr. Watkins’s complaint for failure to state a claim and found 18 that further amendment of the complaint would be futile. Dkt. 38. 19 Mr. Watkins requests relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). Dkt. 40 at 2. Mr. Watkins 20 asks the Court to consider his handwritten transcript of an alleged recording incorporated into his 21 motion. Id. He then restates assertions from his amended complaint that Defendant Cowlitz 22 County pursued a plan to “get rid of” or otherwise harass him (compare Dkt. 22 at 25 with Dkt. 23 40 at 6) and asserts that Cowlitz County has wrongfully taken public funds and that the 24 Washington state court has refused to investigate, see Dkt. 40 at 6–9. Based on his handwritten 1 transcript, he contends that County officials recognized he might sue them and expressed 2 uncertainty about what his rights were to park on the contested land. See id. at 3–4. 3 Under Rule 60(b), a judgment or order may be vacated for (1) mistake, inadvertence,

4 surprise, or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence that could not have been 5 discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial, (3) fraud, 6 misrepresentation, or misconduct of an adverse party, (4) the judgment being void, (5) the 7 judgment being satisfied, or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A 8 Rule 60(b) motion is addressed to the Court’s sound discretion. Civic Ctr. Square v. Ford (In re 9 Roxford Foods), 12 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 1993). 10 Mr. Watkins does not explain how the contentions in his motion demonstrate mistake, 11 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect with regard to his previous filings or the Court’s 12 decision on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Watkins only asserts there has been some plan to

13 “get rid” of him because of his complaints to Cowlitz County and presents the Court with an 14 alleged recording transcript without further explanation. See generally Dkt. 40. Mr. Watkins also 15 appears to imply that unrelated actions in Washington state court amount to misconduct by 16 Cowlitz County. See id. at 6–9. Neither of his assertions present a “mistake, inadvertence, 17 surprise, or excusable neglect” by the parties, nor do they otherwise justify relief from the 18 Court’s order dismissing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Lal v. Cal., 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th 19 Cir. 2010) (stating extraordinary circumstances must be present to justify relief under Rule 20 60(b)(6)). 21 Mr. Watkins’s motion does not explain how Rule 60(b) applies to the contents of his 22 motion and does not otherwise meet the requirements of the rule. Mr. Watkins’s motion is

23 DENIED. The case remains closed. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order 24 to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 1 Dated this 1st day of August, 2024. 2 A 3 Tiffany M. Cartwright 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24