Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02210/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02210-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment; Order Reopening Case; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Ngo210reopen 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIET MIKE NGO,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. WOODFORD, Warden, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-2210 JF 

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT; ORDER

REOPENING CASE;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 

(Docket No. 14)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2007, the Court’s Order addressed to Plaintiff was

returned by mail to the Clerk of the Court as undeliverable because Plaintiff was “out to court as

of 5/2/2007.” On September 30, 2007, the Court dismissed the instant civil rights action without

prejudice pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 for Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court

of his current address. Plaintiff now has pro bono counsel appearing on his behalf. Plaintiff’s

counsel has filed a motion to vacate the judgment and reopen the instant case pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). As set forth below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to

vacate the judgment and reopen the instant civil rights action.

///

Case 5:03-cv-02210-JF Document 18 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment; Order Reopening Case; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Ngo210reopen 2

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate the judgment and reopen the instant case pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. 

Such a motion must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief pursuant to

(1) - (3), no later than one year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A

Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, see id.;

therefore, a party is not relieved of its obligation to comply with the court’s orders simply by

filing a Rule 60(b) motion. Hook v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1404 (9th Cir.

1997).

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by

due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 11 v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir.1993). “Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when

“it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,” or when there

is any other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Rule 60(b) is not intended to remedy the effects

of a deliberate and independent litigation decision that a party later comes to regret through

second thoughts or subsequently-gained knowledge. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452

F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying reconsideration to a party who had settled and then

discovered that her attorney had made legal errors in advising her to settle). 

Under subparagraph (1), “the determination of whether neglect is excusable is an

equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing

party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for

the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal

Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000). Based upon these factors, the Court concludes

that Plaintiff has shown good cause for his excusable neglect in his failure to update the Court

Case 5:03-cv-02210-JF Document 18 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment; Order Reopening Case; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Ngo210reopen 3

with his current address based upon his temporary stay in the Santa Clara County jail for his

pending state court proceedings. See Pet.’s Decl. at 1-2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to

vacate the judgment (docket no. 15) is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) (docket no. 14) is GRANTED. The judgment entered on September 30, 2007 is

VACATED. The Clerk shall REOPEN the file. The Court will review the instant complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issue a briefing schedule in a separate written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

4/30/08

Case 5:03-cv-02210-JF Document 18 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 3