Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dunsmore v. Paramo

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 3, 2013

DARRYL DUNSMORE, Petitioner,
v.
PARAMO, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S RULE 60(b) MOTION [Doc. No. 21]

PETER C. LEWIS, Magistrate Judge.

Now before the Court is Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion. [Doc. No. 21.] For the following reasons, Petitioner's motion shall be DENIED.

Background

In his motion, Petitioner "attacks a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings and procedural ruling of this Court on August 27, 2013."(Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner contends that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is corrupt, bias, and prejudicial towards Petitioner, and as a result, made procedural rulings contrary to law. (Id.) Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Court incorrectly rejected documents he attempted to file with the Court.[1]

In support of his motion, Petitioner cites, Butz v. Mendoza-Powers , 474 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 2007), arguing that a Rule 60(b) motion is appropriate when attacking a defect in the integrity of the Court or procedural ruling. Although Rule 60(b) is discussed in Butz, Petitioner incorrectly cites its holding.[2]

Legal Standard

Generally, motions for reconsideration are decided within the discretion of the district court. However, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a party may be relieved from a " final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."

Discussion

Since Petitioner does not specify which reason under Rule 60(b) he is relying on to challenge the Court's order rejecting his documents filed on August 28, 2013, the Court will consider his motion as a Rule 60(b)(6). According to Rule 60(b)(6) parties may be relieved from final judgments, orders, or proceedings for "any other reason that justifies relief."

Here, Petitioner is challenging the rejection of documents that the Court found, according to local rules, to be filed incorrectly. The Court reasoned that the documents Petitioner attempted to file did not comply with Local Rules, Civ. L. Rule 5.1, Civ. L. Rule 7.1, and were a multi-part motion filed as a single document.[Doc. No. 15.][3] As a result, the Court was within its discretion to accept or reject the document pursuant to the local rules. The Court will also note that in an effort to expedite Petitioner's case it has accepted several documents in the past from Petitioner that contained filing discrepancies. [Doc. No. 5, 10.]

Accordingly, Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.