United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS RE: DKT. NOS. 18
& 19
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff
Thomas Bates brought this action against the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”) seeking a declaration that he is
exempt from paying federal taxes. The Court dismissed the
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; while the
government has waived its sovereign immunity for tax refund
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1346, Plaintiff failed to
satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites to bring suit under
that section. (Dkt. No. 16.) Following entry of judgment,
Plaintiff filed two pleadings: (1) “Writ of Error Quae
Coram Nobis Residant; Order to Correct; Order to Set a
Different Time Re Responsive Pleading” and (2)
“Writ of Error -Rescinding Order and Judgment; Order to
Continue Case; Order to Magistrate” which the Court
construes as motions for relief from judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Dkt. Nos. 18 & 19.) So
construed, the motions are DENIED as set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Under
Rule 60(b), a court may grant a motion for relief from
judgment “only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3)
fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged
judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’
which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G.
Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). The trial
court has wide latitude to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion
to vacate. Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770
F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985).
The
gist of Plaintiff’s motions appears to be an objection
to the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter as a
magistrate judge; however, Plaintiff and Defendant consented
to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4
& 7.) Indeed, the form Plaintiff completed stated that
“[i]n accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a
United States magistrate judge conduct all further
proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final
judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be
taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.” (Dkt. No. 2 (emphasis in original).)
Under Section 636(c), “[u]pon the consent of the
parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge...may
conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil
matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.”
That Plaintiff filed a form declining jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge after twice consenting to the jurisdiction
of a magistrate judge (compare dkt. no. 11
with dkt. nos. 2 & 7) is of no moment as
“[o]nce a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge
under section 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn by the
court only for good cause shown on its own motion, or under
extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.”
Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(4). Because “[t]here is no absolute
right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and
other proceedings before a magistrate judge” and
Plaintiff has not shown good cause or presented evidence of
extraordinary circumstances, but rather, a general
disagreement with the Court’s ruling regarding subject
matter jurisdiction, the undersigned retained jurisdiction to
adjudicate the motion to dismiss and enter judgment here.
Dixon, 990 F.2d at 480; see also Louvouezo v.
City of Honolulu, No. 15-CV-04265-DMR, 2015 WL 7351402,
at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015).
Accordingly,
to the extent that Plaintiff’s motions can be construed
as seeking relief from a “void judgment” pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(4), the motions fail as the judgment was not
void since it was entered pursuant to Section 636(c)(1) with
the consent of the parties. Nor do the motions establish
“extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). See United States v. Alpine Land
& Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)
(“Rule 60(b)(6) has been used sparingly as an equitable
remedy to prevent manifest injustice” and “is to
be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented
a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment.”). Nor do Plaintiffs motions state
a cognizable claim for relief under any other provision of
Rule 60(b). According, Plaintiffs post-judgment motions are
DENIED. This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 18 & 19.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I, the
undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the
Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California.
That on
July 26, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid
envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said
copy(ies) ...