Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUNIOR WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DALY CITY POLICE OFFICERS 

C. AUSTRIA and M. PRICE,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02745 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Junior Williams to vacate the Court’s

order dated March 10, 2004 dismissing the action. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s

papers, having received no opposition from Defendants, and having considered the arguments

and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion. The Court finds the present motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Therefore, the hearing date of June 10, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. is HEREBY

VACATED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) grants district courts discretion to relieve a party

from a judgment or order for reason of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,”

provided that the party moves for such relief not more than one year after the judgment was

entered. The rule “guides the balance between the overriding goal of deciding cases correctly,

on the basis of their legal and factual merits, with the interest of both litigants and the courts in

the finality of judgments. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 63 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 To that end, Plaintiff is on notice that, contrary to his representations in his current

motion, the Court’s order dated December 9, 2003, denying Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment does not establish liability. (See Motion at 3.) The ruling denying

summary judgment was confined to the narrow issue of qualified immunity and, at that stage

in the proceedings, the Court was “required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to

the non-moving party.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). Should this

case proceed to trial, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both liability and damages.

2

2001) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985)). The rule

fashions the balance by both limiting the reasons upon which relief from judgment may be

granted and by setting the time by which a party may seek relief, while also providing district

courts “with discretion within those limits to undo the finality of judgments in order to reach the

merits of questions that have been decided wrongly or not at all.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated sufficient facts to establish his mistake and 

inadvertence for his failure to appear at the status conference set before this Court on March 4,

2005. The calendaring mistake by his legal assistant while counsel was at trial was unfortunate

and should not be repeated in the future, but was an inadvertent mistake. Plaintiff had, until that

juncture, diligently prosecuted this case through a motion for summary judgment on and a

motion to amend the complaint.1

 Although the Court admonishes counsel to follow all court

orders and to work effectively with opposing counsel to prepare filings for the Court, in the

interests of resolving this case on the merits, the Court HEREBY VACATES the order dated

March 10, 2005 dismissing the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The Clerk shall reopen the file and the parties should work expeditiously toward moving

the case forward. To that end, and absent a showing of good cause to change dates, this Court

HEREBY ORDERS the following deadlines:

• Last day to complete settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge:

September 30, 2005;

• Last day to conduct fact discovery: September 30, 2005;

• Further case management conference: September 30, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.;

• Last day to disclose experts: November 22, 2005;

• Last day to conduct expert discovery: December 17, 2005;

• Last day to hear dispositive motions: January 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 63 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

• Pretrial conference: Monday, March 20, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.

• Trial to commence: Monday, April 10, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 63 Filed 05/31/05 Page 3 of 3