(PC) Ruiz v. Arakaki ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 8 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. ) TO REOPEN CASE 10 L. ARAKAKI, et al., ) (Doc. No. 59) ) 11 Defendants. ) ) 12 ) 13 On May 1, 2020, the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed and 14 judgment was entered. (Doc. Nos. 57, 58.) 15 On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reopen the case. (Doc. No. 59.) It appears 16 that Plaintiff contends that he was not notified of the result in this case. (Id.) 17 “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of 18 his case, under a limited set of circumstances....” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Rule 19 60(b) relief is extraordinary and will not apply to a showing which does not justify its 20 application. See Stevens v. ITT Sys., Inc., 868 F.2d 1040, 1041 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989). “Motions for relief 21 from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are committed to the sound 22 discretion of the trial judge.” Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 23 Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a judgment or order when the moving party can show: (1) 24 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not 25 have been discovered by due diligence before the court's decision; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or 26 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any 27 other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS 28 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether the court should grant relief “depends on at least four 1 || factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potenti 2 ||impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in goc 3 || faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (adoptir 4 || standard to determine excusable neglect as set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc 5 || Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Thus, a district court may grant a motion for relief from judgme 6 || under Rule 60(b)(1) if the moving party can show mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. See Fed. | 7 || Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). 8 “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), (2 9 || and (3) no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order” from which the moving party seel 10 ||relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 11 Plaintiff's case was dismissed and judgment was entered on May 1, 2020, however Plaintiff d 12 not file his motion to reopen the case until over two years Therefore, Plaintiff's motion was untime 13 || under Rule 52(c) and 60(b). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to meet any of the requirements for granting 14 || motion under Rule 60(b). He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect 15 || He has not shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not establishe 16 || that the judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, Plaintiff has not presented any other reaso1 17 justifying relief from judgment. The Court’s May 1, 2020 dismissal order was served at Plaintiff 18 || address of record which constitutes effective service. Local Rule 182(f). Indeed, the May 10, 202 19 || was not returned by the United States Postal Office as “undeliverable.” 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case 21 || DENIED. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2p 24 || Dated: _ January 11, 2023 7 Sz 7 Cb Lec _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28