Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04590/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04590-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN ANN BARTHOLOMEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAD FINKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04590-CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Pro se plaintiff Marilyn Bartholomew has sued a variety of state-court officials, 

alleging a conspiracy to deprive her of a judicially-authorized order in her state-court 

appeal. See generally First Amend. Compl. (Dkt. 16). Defendants moved to dismiss, Mot. 

to Dismiss (Dkt. 20), and on January 23, 2019, the Court granted that motion on the 

ground that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Order (Dkt. 

35). The Court thus dismissed the case with prejudice, id., and issued a judgment in favor 

of Defendants. Judgment (Dkt. 37).

Plaintiff has now filed a motion styled Motion for Relief From Order Granting 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and for Relief from the Judgment. Mot. (Dkt. 38). This 

Court held a hearing on that Motion on March 1, 2019. The Court now DENIES that 

motion.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) is 

appropriate here because she “inadvertently made the mistake of neglecting to provide 

sufficient clarification for paragraph 261 in her First Amended Complaint’s Sixth Claim 

Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 44 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 3
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

for Relief,” and did “not intend that her Sixth Claim for Relief be interpreted to mean that 

it asks this Court to declare void the state court’s holdings or rulings by judges in the 

underlying case.” Mot. at 2. As she did in her First Amended Complaint and her 

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff argues that “none of the documents 

described [by the state court] as minute orders issued in her appeal . . . were ever issued by 

or authorized by judges and that those documents therefore do not contain rulings or 

holdings by the state court. Plaintiff hereby moves this Court to permit Plaintiff the option 

of eliminating her Sixth Claim for Relief, since Plaintiff is willing to proceed on any other 

claims that are not barred.” Mot. at 2; see also First Amend. Compl. ¶ 78, Opp. to Mot. to 

Dismiss at 2. 

This argument fails. Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to grant relief from judgment 

where there has been “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b)(1). Rule 60 is to be used “sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 

injustice,” but only in “extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. State of Wash., 98 

F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 

984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 813 (1993)). The argument that 

Plaintiff now advances does not meet this high bar; indeed, it is no different from the one 

she advanced in her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. See Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss 

(Dkt. 25) at 2. And the Court has already rejected that argument on the grounds that the 

First Amended Complaint asked this Court to declare void a state court order, which “is 

effectively an appeal of those orders.” Order at 3.1 Moreover, the problem with Petitioner’s 

First Amended Complaint was not restricted to her Sixth Claim for Relief, the only claim 

for relief she specifically references in her Motion. See generally Mot. Rather, all of her 

 

1 Plaintiff also indicates that her failure to appear the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss was inadvertent and, she seems to argue, she would have “clarified” what she 

meant in her Complaint. Mot. at 4-5. But, again, the only “clarification” that she offers is 

to merely repeats the argument made in her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that the 

alleged “sham” orders meant that there was no state court opinion at all. See Opp. to Mot. 

to Dismiss at 2, 10; Mot. at 4-5. For the reasons discussed in the Order Granting Motion to 

Dismiss, that argument is unpersuasive.

Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 44 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 44 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 3