United States District Court, S.D. California
CALIFORNIA STEAMIN' and; DAVID A. DEAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF TEMECULA; et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Hon.
William Q. Hayes United States Judge.
The
matters before the Court are the Motion to Re-Open and
Reconsider filed by Plaintiff David A. Dean (ECF No. 59), the
Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff David A. Dean
(ECF No. 77), and the Motion to Consolidate and Stay filed by
Plaintiff David A. Dean (ECF No. 81).
BACKGROUND
On
March 13, 2001, Plaintiffs California Steamin' and David
A. Dean, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants City of Temecula, Riverside County Sheriff's
Department, Richard Riles, Jon Cook, Deputy Rico, Buie
Communities, Charley Wickfield, Mike Ash, Woodside Homes,
Bryan Stancil, Troy Woods, Corky McMillin, Lance Doe, Eddie
Andrade, Continental Homes, Karen Ness, Mike Parks, and Ted
Sawyer. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff David A. Dean alleges that
Defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Id. at 5. Plaintiff David A. Dean
alleges that Defendants' actions led to his unlawful
arrest and “led to the closure of Plaintiff's
company California Steamin'”. Id.
On
September 24, 2001, the Court dismissed the case without
prejudice for failure to serve as to Defendants City of
Temecula, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Richard
Riles, Jon Cook, Deputy Rico, Buie Communities, Charley
Wickfield, Mike Ash, Woodside Homes, Bryan Stancil, Troy
Woods, Corky McMillin, Lance Doe, and Eddie Andrade. (ECF No.
11).
On May
17, 2002, Defendants Continental Homes, Karen Ness, Mike
Parks, and Ted Sawyer filed a Motion to Dismiss, or
alternatively, for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 15). The record
reflects that Plaintiffs did not file a Response in
Opposition and Defendants did not file a Reply. On July 1,
2002, the Court granted Defendants Continental Homes, Karen
Ness, Mike Parks, and Ted Sawyer's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 24). The Court concluded that the
Defendants were private parties and did not “conspire[]
with government agents to deprive Plaintiff Dean of his
constitutional rights.” Id. at 3. On July 2,
2002, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 25).
On June
21, 2019, this case was reassigned to this Court. (ECF No.
33).
On July
3, 2019, Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a declaration. (ECF
No. 35). On July 8, 2019 Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a
declaration. (ECF No. 37). On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff David
A. Dean filed five letters (ECF Nos. 41, 43, 45, 47, 49); a
Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 51); and a Motion to Withdraw
Motion to Re-Open (ECF No. 53).
On
August 13, 2019, this Court issued a minute entry granting
Plaintiff David A. Dean's Motion to Withdraw Motion to
Reopen (ECF No. 53) and denying as moot Plaintiff David A.
Dean's Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 51). (ECF No. 54).
On
August 26, 2019, Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a declaration.
(ECF No. 57). On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff David A. Dean
filed a notice of lodgment (ECF No. 59), which includes a
Motion to Re-Open and a Motion to Reconsider. On the same
day, Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a letter (ECF No. 61). On
November 21, 2019, Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a letter.
(ECF No. 63). On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff David A. Dean
filed an amendment. (ECF No. 65). On December 23, 2019,
Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a notice of lodgment (ECF No.
67) and a declaration (ECF No. 69). On December 30, 2019,
Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a notice of lodgment (ECF No.
71); a Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 77); two letters
(ECF No. 78, 79); a declaration (ECF No. 80); and a Motion to
Consolidate and Stay (ECF No. 81). On January 2, 2020,
Plaintiff David A. Dean filed a notice of lodgment (ECF No.
83). On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff David A. Dean filed four
declarations (ECF No. 85, 91, 93, 95); a series of documents
(ECF No. 87); and notice (ECF No. 89). Plaintiff David A.
Dean has failed to file proof of service.
RULING
OF THE COURT
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that,
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1-6). “A motion under Rule 60(b)
must be made within a reasonable time-and for reasons (1),
(2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff David A. Dean has not set
forth sufficient evidence to support relief from judgment.
Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion is not timely as to reasons
(1), (2), and (3) because judgment was entered on July 2,
2002. Plaintiff further has not set forth sufficient any
evidence in support of reasons (4), (5), or (6). The Court
has reviewed ...