Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00440/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00440-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA STEAMIN’ and; 

DAVID A. DEAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TEMECULA; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:01-cv-00440-WQH-MSB

ORDER

HAYES, 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 

Case 3:01-cv-00440-WQH-MSB Document 96 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

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

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 

Case 3:01-cv-00440-WQH-MSB Document 96 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

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 the Motions to Consolidate Cases (ECF Nos. 77, 81) 

Case 3:01-cv-00440-WQH-MSB Document 96 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

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

and finds no cause to consolidate this action with Plaintiff David A. Dean’s state court 

cases. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Re-Open and Reconsider filed by 

Plaintiff David A. Dean (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff 

David A. Dean (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate and Stay filed by 

Plaintiff David A. Dean (ECF No. 81) is DENIED.

Dated: January 9, 2020

Case 3:01-cv-00440-WQH-MSB Document 96 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4