Purnell v. Trans Union LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGETTE PURNELL, No. 1:17-cv-00393-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT 14 EQUIFAX, INC. and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., (Doc. No. 26) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the court is plaintiff Georgette Purnell’s motion for relief from judgment 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) which was filed with this court on February 19 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 26.) Therein, plaintiff seeks to vacate the undersigned’s August 25, 2017 20 order adopting in full the assigned magistrate judge’s June 23, 2017 findings and 21 recommendations recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 22 failure to comply with a court order and her failure to prosecute this action. (Id. at 1–4; see also 23 Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 25.) Plaintiff bases her motion for relief from judgment, filed almost two and 24 one half years after the judgment was issued, upon her assertion that she was not able to 25 effectively prosecute this now-closed action “due to severe mental illness.” (Doc. No. 26 at 2.) 26 Plaintiff has attached to the pending motion various documents from 2018 and 2019 that 27 purportedly demonstrate the extent of her mental illness. (See id. at Ex. B.) For the reasons set 28 forth below, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 1 Federal Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6) provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as 2 are just, the court may relieve a party. . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any [] 3 reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used 4 sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 5 extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 6 (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1)– 7 (5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” 8 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration should not be 9 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 10 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 11 law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 12 could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 13 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations 14 omitted). 15 Plaintiff focuses her arguments on subsection (6) of Rule 60(b), which permits relief from 16 judgment for “any [] reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under this 17 provision “will not be granted unless the moving party is able to show both injury and 18 circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its interest.” Gardner v. 19 Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, plaintiff contends that her severe mental 20 illness prevented her from effectively prosecuting this action, and she points the court to various 21 documents from 2018 and 2019 that purportedly help establish the extent of that mental illness. 22 (See Doc. No. 26, Ex. B.) Accepting the assertion that mental illness is a basis upon which the 23 court could grant the requested relief, plaintiff here has provided the court with no evidence 24 establishing that she was severely mentally ill in the summer of 2017, when the court dismissed 25 this action, or during any other time while this case was open and pending. (See Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 26 25.) Even if the court was to find that the documents relating to 2018 and 2019 establish that 27 plaintiff suffers from a mental illness, those documents do not establish that plaintiff was 28 suffering from such an illness or was otherwise incapacitated while this action was pending in 1 | 2017. Plaintiff has therefore not presented any reasons justifying the requested relief from 2 | judgment. Moreover, this court’s Local Rules require a motion for reconsideration to set forth 3 | “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 4 | shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule □□□□□□□ 5 | Plaintiff has failed to make that required showing. Finally, the court notes that this action was 6 | dismissed without prejudice, meaning that plaintiff is free to file another action in which she may 7 | allege the same claims against the same defendants, so long as such claims are not otherwise 8 | barred. See Miljkovic v. Winter, No. 05-00164 JMS/LEK, 2007 WL 2363312, at *3 (D. Haw. 9 | Aug. 16, 2007) (“Plaintiff is informed that his complaint has been dismissed without prejudice; as 10 | such, he may refile the complaint. The court is not implying that the complaint is meritorious . . ., 11 | but merely points out that Plaintiff may refile if he so elects.”). 12 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. No. 26) is 13 || denied. 14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: _-Mareh 30, 2020 Yole A Lange 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28