1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 NANCY SUSSMAN, MICHAEL Case No.: 20cv1085-JO-MDD SUSSMAN ESTATE THEREOF BY 9 AND THRU HIS SPECIAL 10 ADMINISTER FOR THE ESTATE, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 Plaintiff, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE 12 JUDGMENT v. 13 SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 14 et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On April 12, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Nancy Sussman filed what appears to be a motion 19 to set aside a judgment issued by the Honorable Judge Dana Sabraw in a separate action. 20 See Dkt. 140. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion. 21 A. Prior Action Filed by Plaintiff 22 On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit alleging a conspiracy to falsely prosecute and 23 convict her son, Mr. Sussman. Nancy Sussman, et al. v. San Diego Police Dept., et al., 24 Case No. 19cv1063 DMS (JLB) (the “Prior Action”). Judge Sabraw, who presided over 25 the Prior Action, dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice on 26 November 4, 2019. See Prior Action Dkt. 110. On September 15, 2020, a panel of Ninth 27 Circuit Judges affirmed Judge Sabraw’s decision. See Prior Action Dkt. 128. 28 /// | || B. Discussion 2 The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to set aside Judge Sabraw’s judgment because 3 || it does not have the authority to review another court’s final order, nor to overrule the Ninth 4 ||Circuit.! Principles of “comity and orderly administration of justice” prevent this Court 5 || from setting aside a judgment that was not issued by it. See, e.g., Treadaway v. Acad. of 6 || Motion Picture Arts & Scis., 783 F.2d 1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (upholding district court’s 7 ||refusal to set aside another court’s final order); Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th 8 || Cir. 1974) (noting that even a court on remand cannot act “in a manner inconsistent” with 9 || the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance). Here, the order that Plaintiff seeks to set aside was issued 10 || by Judge Sabraw in a separate case. This Court has no role in reviewing such an order or 11 setting it aside. Moreover, the order that Judge Sabraw issued was subsequently affirmed 12 || by the Ninth Circuit. This Court also does not have the authority to overrule or set aside 13 decision of the appellate court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to set aside the 14 || judgment [Dkt. 140] is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 C) eo 18 Dated: December 5, 2022 OY 19 Hon. Jinsook Ohta . United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 t~<“Cis....C 26 ' The Court further notes that even if the Court could set aside the judgment, which it cannot, 7 Plaintiff has come nowhere close to meeting her “clear and convincing” burden to demonstrate fraud on the court under Rule 60(b). See Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171, 1181 (9th Cir. 2015). 28