United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
After
judgment was entered against him, plaintiff, a prisoner and
vexatious litigant proceeding pro se, filed a response to the
court's entry of judgment. ECF No. 17. Based on its
contents, the court interprets the response as a motion to
alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), or to vacate
the judgment under Rule 60(b). For the reasons explained
below, the court DENIES defendant's motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed a complaint against Siskiyou County on September 19,
2018, alleging the judgment against him in his criminal case
was void, because the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff moved to proceed
in forma pauperis on December 10, 2018. ECF No. 8. The
magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied, because
plaintiff has “struck out” pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 9 at 1. The court adopted the
magistrate judge's recommendation and denied
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No.
10. On September 10, 2019, the magistrate judge recommended
the court dismiss the case, because plaintiff had not paid
the required filing fee, ECF No. 12, and, after considering
plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 13, the court adopted the
recommendation and dismissed the case, ECF No. 15. The court
entered judgment against plaintiff on October 1, 2019. ECF
No. 16.
Before
the court is plaintiff's “response” to the
court's order and entry of judgment, in which plaintiff
reiterates the same jurisdictional arguments he made in his
complaint and his objections to the findings and
recommendations. Mot., ECF No. 17. Accordingly, the court
interprets the response as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e), or to vacate the judgment under
Rule 60(b). For the reasons below, the court DENIES
plaintiff's motion.
II.
RULE 59(e) ARGUMENTS
A.
Legal Standard
A Rule
59(e) motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if
it “is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
change in the controlling law.” McDowell v.
Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)
(emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners
v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A
Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments
or present evidence for the first time when they could
reasonably have been raised or presented earlier in the
litigation.” Kona, 229 F.3d at 890 (emphasis
in original). Such a motion must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
B.
Discussion
Judgment
in this case was entered on October 1, 2019. Plaintiff did
not file a response until November 20, 2019. Therefore,
plaintiff did not meet the 28-day timeline to file a Rule
59(e) motion, and the motion must be dismissed as a result.
Furthermore,
plaintiff raised the argument that the judgment against him
in his criminal case was obtained by fraud in his objections
to the findings and recommendations, which the court
considered when deciding whether to adopt the findings and
recommendations. See Objs., ECF No. 13, at 2, 5;
Order, ECF No. 15, at 1. Plaintiff also raised it in his
complaint. Compl. at 1. Here, plaintiff makes the same
argument again, and does not meet his burden of showing any
“newly discovered evidence, ” that the court
previously “committed clear error, ” nor
does he point to any “intervening change in the
controlling law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255.
Accordingly,
to the extent plaintiff's moves under Rule 59(e), the
motion is DENIED.
III.
RULE 60(B)
Under
Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or ...