Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05459/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK DILLARD and THE TULARE

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et

al.,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-CV-5459 OWW LJO

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE

APPEAL AND MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.

I. INTRODUCTION

Charles Williams (“Williams” or “Plaintiff”) moves for leave

to file a late appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

(Doc. 38, Motion at 1:22-23, 2:13-20). Plaintiff also moves for

relief from judgment of the district court’s order granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“Order”), pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc. 36). Frank Dillard (“Dillard”) and

the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department (collectively,

“Defendants”) do not respond.

//

//

//

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 8
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

2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants on April 15,

2003, arising from an incident involving Defendant Dillard and

Plaintiff’s possible parole violation. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff

filed his First Amended Complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging (1)

false imprisonment, (2) abuse of authority under the color of law

(3) cruel and unusual punishment, and (4) unreasonable search and

seizure. (Doc. 8 at 8). Defendants moved for summary judgment

on August 16, 2004. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff responded on August

25, 2004. (Doc. 34). An Order granting summary judgment was

entered on November 3, 2004. (Doc. 36, Order). The Order was

served on Plaintiff on November 3, 2004. (Id. at Certificate of

Service). 

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a late appeal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 38, Motion at 1:22-23). Section

636(c), however, discusses the jurisdiction and role of

magistrate judges within the court system, not the grounds or

justification to file a late appeal to an order issued by a

district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff further

argues that Fed. R. App. P. 5.1 “provides that ‘[a]n appeal on

petition for leave to appeal is not a matter of right but[] its

allowance is a matter of sound judicial desecration [sic].’”

(Doc. 38, Motion at 2:13-20). Rule 5.1, however, has been

abrogated. Fed. R. App. P. 5.1. Even if Rule 5.1 had not been

abrogated, it still would not apply to the case at bar because it

relates to orders entered by magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. §

636(c)(5). Id. Nonetheless, the Federal Courts Improvement Act

of 1996 abolished appeals by permission under 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 8
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

636(c)(5), making Rule 5.1 obsolete. Id. 

Plaintiff appears instead to request to reopen the time to

file his appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). As such,

Plaintiff’s Motion will be reviewed under the standards set forth

therein. Additionally, construing Plaintiff’s Motion liberally,

it appears that Plaintiff also moves for relief from the Order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (See Doc. 38, Motion at 1:19-21). 

Plaintiff’s Motion will therefore also be reviewed under the Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) standard.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. Reopening the Time to File an Appeal.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), a district court may reopen

the time to file an appeal if the following conditions are

satisfied:

(A) the motion is filed within 180 days after the

judgment or order is entered or within 7 days after

the moving party receives notice of the entry,

whichever is earlier;

(B) the court finds that the moving party was

entitled to notice of the entry of the judgment or

order sought to be appealed but did not receive the

notice from the district court or any party within

21 days after entry; and

(C) the court finds that no party would be

prejudiced. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

2. Relief from Judgment or Order.

Courts may relieve a party from a final judgment or order

for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered material evidence which

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 8
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

4

by due diligence could not have been discovered earlier; (3)

fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse

party; (4) judgment is void; (5) judgment has been satisfied,

released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Clause 60(b)(6) “is reserved for extraordinary

circumstances.” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser

Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). Motions for relief from judgment or

order under Rule 60(b) are committed to the discretion of the

trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc).

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

1. Reopening the Time to File an Appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) requires that a notice of appeal

be filed “within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed

from is entered.” Plaintiff failed to submit a notice of appeal

within thirty days after judgment was entered, and now moves for

leave to file a late appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A) requires

that a motion for leave to file a late appeal be “filed within 7

days after the moving party receives notice of the entry....” 

The Order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was

entered and served on Plaintiff on November 3, 2004. (Doc. 36,

Order; id. at Certificate of Service). Plaintiff now moves for

leave to file a late appeal 117 days after the Order was entered

and served on him. (See Doc. 38, Motion). Plaintiff does not

assert that he failed to receive notice of the Order. (See Doc.

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 4 of 8
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 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) actually requires that a

notice of appeal be filed “within 30 days after the judgment or

order appealed from is entered,” not thirty-five days as asserted

by Plaintiff. 

5

38, Motion). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file late appeal is

untimely. Because Plaintiff does not assert that he failed to

receive notice of the Order, the seven day filing period set

forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A) began running on November 3,

2004, the day Plaintiff received notice of entry of the Order. 

Time to file an appeal therefore expired on November 10, 2004–-

over three months before Plaintiff submitted his Motion. Even if

Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Order until several days

after November, 3, 2004, Plaintiff’s motion would still be

untimely. Because his Motion is untimely, and no sufficient

ground for extension is offered, the district court cannot extend

the time for Plaintiff to file an appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(6). Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file a late appeal

is DENIED. 

2. Relief from Judgment or Order.

Plaintiff also appears to be arguing for relief from the

summary judgment Order on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, and

excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiff

asserts that his ignorance of “the 35 day time limit to file

appeal and application for certificate of appealability”

constitutes “inadvertence[,] excusable neglect, and mistake....” 

(Doc. 38, Motion at 1:19-21).1 Alternatively, Plaintiff appears

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 5 of 8
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

6

to assert that the Court mistakenly overlooked issues of triable

fact set forth in his First Amended Complaint and his response to

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As such, only the

standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) will be applied. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) entitles a party to relief from an

order if the party sufficiently alleges mistake, inadvertence, or

excusable neglect. “While Rule 60(b)(1) does not expressly say

that a showing must be made that the...order...was entered

because of mistake, inadvertance, [] or excusable neglect, it

appears...implicit under the rule.” Edwards v. Velvac, Inc., 19

F.R.D. 504, 507 (E.D. Wis. 1956) (emphasis added). To succeed, a

party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g.,

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656,

665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S.

1015 (1988). 

Plaintiff appears to assert that he is entitled to relief

from the Order because of his own inadvertence, excusable

neglect, mistake, and ignorance of “the 35 day time limit to file

appeal and application for certificate of appealability.” (Doc.

38, Motion at 1:19-21). However, “[n]either ignorance nor

carelessness on the part of a litigant...will provide grounds”

for setting aside a judgment or order on the basis of mistake or

inadvertence. Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th

Cir. 1972). A motion for relief from a final order cannot be

granted for excusable neglect where the only act or omission

asserted is Plaintiff’s failure to file his notice of appeal

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

within thirty days of judgment as required by Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A). Edwards, 19 F.R.D. at 507. Plaintiff has provided

no basis for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). 

Alternatively, Plaintiff appears to assert that the Court

mistakenly failed to recognize the triable issues of fact

presented in his First Amended Complaint and his response to

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 38, Motion at

2:6-7). However, his First Amended Complaint and his response to

summary judgment were both thoroughly considered by the Court in

granting and entering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

(See Doc. 36, Order). A motion for relief from judgment “is not

a vehicle to reargue a motion or to present evidence which should

have been raised before." Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., 820

F. Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3rd Cir.

1994). A party seeking relief “must show more than a

disagreement with the Court's decision.... [R]ecapitulation of

the cases and arguments considered by the Court before rendering

its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” 

Id. Plaintiff’s Motion merely asserts the same substantive facts

as were earlier presented. It fails to sufficiently establish

any mistake of law made by the Court or any new facts. 

Plaintiff’s showing is completely inadequate.

To the extent Plaintiff moves for relief from the summary

judgment Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), his Motion

is DENIED. 

//

//

//

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file a late appeal

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for relief from the summary judgment

Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05459-OWW -LJO Document 40 Filed 08/02/05 Page 8 of 8