(PC) Bonilla v. Siskiyou County ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, No. 2:18-cv-02555-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SISKIYOU COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 After judgment was entered against him, plaintiff, a prisoner and vexatious litigant 18 proceeding pro se, filed a response to the court’s entry of judgment. ECF No. 17. Based on its 19 contents, the court interprets the response as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 20 59(e), or to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b). For the reasons explained below, the court 21 DENIES defendant’s motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed a complaint against Siskiyou County on September 19, 2018, 24 alleging the judgment against him in his criminal case was void, because the court lacked subject 25 matter jurisdiction. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis on 26 December 10, 2018. ECF No. 8. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied, 27 because plaintiff has “struck out” pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 9 at 1. The 28 court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 1 forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge recommended the 2 court dismiss the case, because plaintiff had not paid the required filing fee, ECF No. 12, and, 3 after considering plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 13, the court adopted the recommendation and 4 dismissed the case, ECF No. 15. The court entered judgment against plaintiff on October 1, 2019. 5 ECF No. 16. 6 Before the court is plaintiff’s “response” to the court’s order and entry of 7 judgment, in which plaintiff reiterates the same jurisdictional arguments he made in his complaint 8 and his objections to the findings and recommendations. Mot., ECF No. 17. Accordingly, the 9 court interprets the response as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), or to 10 vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b). For the reasons below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s 11 motion. 12 II. RULE 59(e) ARGUMENTS 13 A. Legal Standard 14 A Rule 59(e) motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 15 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 16 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A district court may grant a Rule 17 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 18 is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 19 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 20 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or 21 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised or presented 22 earlier in the litigation.” Kona, 229 F.3d at 890 (emphasis in original). Such a motion must be 23 filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 24 B. Discussion 25 Judgment in this case was entered on October 1, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a 26 response until November 20, 2019. Therefore, plaintiff did not meet the 28-day timeline to file a 27 Rule 59(e) motion, and the motion must be dismissed as a result. 28 ///// 1 Furthermore, plaintiff raised the argument that the judgment against him in his 2 criminal case was obtained by fraud in his objections to the findings and recommendations, which 3 the court considered when deciding whether to adopt the findings and recommendations. See 4 Objs., ECF No. 13, at 2, 5; Order, ECF No. 15, at 1. Plaintiff also raised it in his complaint. 5 Compl. at 1. Here, plaintiff makes the same argument again, and does not meet his burden of 6 showing any “newly discovered evidence,” that the court previously “committed clear error,” nor 7 does he point to any “intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255. 8 Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff’s moves under Rule 59(e), the motion is 9 DENIED. 10 III. RULE 60(B) 11 Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 12 final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 13 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 14 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 15 59(b); 16 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 17 (4) the judgment is void; 18 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 19 based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 20 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 21 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 23 Here, defendant requests relief from judgment because the court allegedly lacks 24 jurisdiction, due to the fact the criminal judgment against him was obtained by “falsely claiming 25 that the evidence [against him] was obtained pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena that 26 [prosecutors] knew NEVER EXISTED.” Mot. at 1. However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s 27 complaint because plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee. See Findings and 28 Recommendations, ECF No. 12, at 1; Order, ECF No. 15. Therefore, even if viable, plaintiff’s 1 fraud argument does not affect the conclusion that the court must dismiss plaintiff’s case for 2 failure to pay the required filing fee. 3 To the extent plaintiff moves under Rule 60(b), the motion is DENIED. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 Plaintiff’s response to the court’s entry of judgment, whether interpreted as a Rule 6 54 motion or a Rule 60 motion, is DENIED. This order resolves ECF No. 17. 7 The case remains closed. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: December 5, 2019. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28