Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05598/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05598-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABRAHAM PORTNOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL S. GREWAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05598-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REINSTATE AND MOTION TO 

REOPEN JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 12, 13]

Plaintiff Abraham Portnov filed this suit to challenge the conduct of Defendant Judge Paul 

S. Grewal when Judge Grewal was a judge in this District. ECF 2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case entirely because Judge Grewal is 

immune from damage liability for acts performed in his official capacity. E.g., Ashelman v. Pope, 

793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986); ECF 10. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reinstate the 

dismissed case and a motion to reopen judgment. ECF 12, 13. In his motions, Plaintiff argues 

that the Court has neglected to take into account Plaintiff’s diversity jurisdiction and that he is 

permitted to sue federal judges under special conditions. Mot. 1, ECF 12.

First, the Court must identify the proper procedural rule under which Plaintiff has 

submitted these papers before evaluating Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff represented that he is 

moving to reopen judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60, and alternatively, as a motion for 

reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7-9(a). ECF 13. Plaintiff is not seeking to correct 

judgment to “reflect the actual intentions and necessary implications” of the Court’s prior order. 

Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993). Rather, Plaintiff argues that he should be 

allowed to sue Judge Grewal, contrary to the ruling made by the Court. Accordingly, Rule 60 

would not be the proper rule for Plaintiff’s motion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078 

Case 5:16-cv-05598-BLF Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “Rule 60(a)’s touchstone is fidelity to the intent behind the original 

judgment”). Local Civil Rule 7-9(a) is also not applicable here because Rule 7-9(a) only applies 

to pre-judgment motions for reconsideration. E.g., Sepehry-Fard v. Countrywide Home Loans, 

Inc., No. 13-05769-BLF, 2014 WL 3821544, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014).

Given Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall liberally construe Plaintiff’s motion 

and treat it as a timely filed motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e) would be the proper procedural rule for 

Plaintiff to challenge the Court’s final judgment and the Court will now turn to Plaintiff’s 

arguments in his motions.

A motion “under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 

1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration

‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000)).

Here, Plaintiff’s basis for amending this Court’s judgment appears to be his “diversity 

citizenship status.” Mot. to Reinstate (“Mot”) 1. Plaintiff argues that his “diversity jurisdiction” 

allows him to sue “federal judges upon special conditions.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that Judge 

Grewal did not perform his duty “normally” but “illogically” and with “bias.” Id. However, even 

assuming Plaintiff’s assertion that there is diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s complaint still must be 

dismissed. As noted in the order dismissing this case, all of the actions Plaintiff complains about 

were taken by Judge Grewal in his role as a judge, presiding over Plaintiff’s prior case in United 

States District Court. Compl. 1. In such a case, “[j]udicial immunity applies however erroneous 

the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the 

plaintiff.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075; Sadorski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2006) (mistake alone is not sufficient to deprive a judge of absolute immunity). Plaintiff’s 

Case 5:16-cv-05598-BLF Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

argument for “diversity jurisdiction” does not alter the fact that the doctrine of judicial immunity 

bars his claims. Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239 n.18 (1979) (noting “jurisdiction” refers to 

whether the courts have the power to hear a case while “cause of action” pertains to whether the 

plaintiff may invoke the power of the courts).

The Court briefly addresses other potential legal theories Plaintiff has raised, to the extent 

comprehensible. Plaintiff also contends that the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution and the 

doctrine of state sovereign immunity permit him to sue Judge Grewal. Mot. 2, 4. Plaintiff’s legal 

theory under the Eleventh Amendment is unclear and there is no authority stating that the Eleventh 

Amendment or the doctrine of state sovereign immunity abrogates judicial immunity here. Hibbs 

v. Dep’t of Human Res., 273 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing when Congress can 

abrogate state sovereign immunity but not judicial immunity). Plaintiff mentions 28 U.S.C. 

section 455 but that statute pertains to whether a judge should be recused from a case and does not 

provide an exception to judicial immunity. Mot. 2. Plaintiff further cites Forrester v. White, 

which concerns a plaintiff who filed a discrimination suit against a judge in relation to the judge’s 

administrative duties, such as supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation 

of a court, and not based on judicial acts. 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988); Mot. 2. In contrast, the basis 

for Plaintiff’s complaint here stems solely from Judge Grewal’s conduct presiding over Plaintiff’s 

prior case, including statements made in his order. Compl. Because such conduct relates to 

Judge Grewal’s judicial duty, Forrester does not apply to this case. See also Order Dismissing 

Case, ECF 10. Plaintiff also cites to cases pertaining to standard of review on appeal and 

misstates the law on other cases, none of which demonstrate that the judgment entered was clear 

error. Mot. 3; e.g., Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078-79 (overruling Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 

849 (9th Cir. 1980), and holding that the allegations of “conspiracy between judge and prosecutor 

to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding are insufficient to overcome those 

immunities”).

In sum, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case because judicial immunity bars his claims and 

Plaintiff has identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law to 

justify overturning this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). 

Case 5:16-cv-05598-BLF Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 59(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05598-BLF Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 4