Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04206/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04206-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE RIGOBERTO MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC AUKEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04206-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, 

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 

CONTINUE CASE, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Docket No. 23, 24, 25

Plaintiff Rigoberto Jose Moreno, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against a long list of 

defendants. Docket No. 1. On July 31, 2019, the Court granted his request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Docket No. 4. However, the Court dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Mr. Moreno was given 

leave to file an amended complaint no later than August 30, 2019. Id. Plaintiff was informed that 

if he failed to file an amended complaint, dismissal would be the likely result. Id. The Court also 

directed Plaintiff to the Court’s guide for pro se litigants as well as the Legal Help Center. Id. 

However, Mr. Moreno did not file an amended complaint as he was directed to do by August 30, 

2019, and the Court dismissed his case on September 20, 2019. See Docket No. 20. 

On September 27, 2019, Mr. Moreno filed a “Motion to Continue Case, Regarding Status 

Conference on October 24, 2019.” See Docket No. 23 (“Mot. to Continue”). While Mr. Moreno’s 

motion is somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears that he is requesting that the case status 

conference previously set for October 24, 2019 be maintained. However, because Mr. Moreno’s 

case has been dismissed, there is no need for a case status conference. As a result, Mr. Moreno’s 

“Motion to Continue Case, Regarding Status Conference on October 24, 2019” is DENIED.

Case 3:19-cv-04206-EMC Document 26 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Moreno has also filed a “Motion to Set Aside Judgement [sic].” See Docket No. 25. 

Although he does not mention Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in this motion, he does mention 

Rule 60(b)(6) (as well as Rule 60(b)(1)–(5)) in his “Motion to Continue Case.” See Mot. to 

Continue at 3. Because he titles his motion as one to set aside a judgment, the Court treats this 

motion as one for relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, there is 

nothing in Mr. Moreno’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgement” that would qualify him for relief 

pursuant to Rule 60(b). He does not allege a mistake by the Court, the existence of newly 

discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b);

United States v. Real Prop., 164 F.R.D. 496, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d sub nom. United States v. 

Real Prop. Described as 3947 Locke Ave., Los Angeles, Cal., 97 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996) (“any 

litigant seeking a right to reopen under Rule 60(b) must bring himself within one of the fact 

situations listed in that rule”). As a result, Mr. Moreno’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgement” is 

DENIED. Because the Court declines to set aside its previous judgment, Mr. Moreno’s “Motion 

for Leave to Amend Complaint in Absence of Undue Delay,” see Docket No. 24, is also 

DENIED. 

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 23, 24, and 25. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04206-EMC Document 26 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 2