Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03618/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03618-3/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

MARCO HEYWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAYWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT and

OFFICER CLARK,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03618-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Re: Docket No. 26

On April 13, 2015, the Court dismissed this case for failure to prosecute, noting Plaintiff 

Marco Heyward delayed adjudication of his claims by failing to respond to Defendants’ discovery 

requests, failing to respond to a pending Motion for Sanctions, failing to appear for the early 

neutral evaluation hearing, and failing to respond to the Court’s show cause order. Dkt. No. 25. 

Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60. Dkt. No. 26. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion, and it finds that a 

response from Defendants is not warranted. The Court also finds Plaintiff’s Motion suitable for 

disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) 

mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due 

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse 

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason 

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 

1993). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound 

discretion of the district court.” Casey v. Albertso’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff does not state under which provision he brings his Motion, but the Court finds he 

Case 3:14-cv-03618-MEJ Document 31 Filed 08/17/15 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

has not demonstrated a valid ground for relief under any provision. Plaintiff’s only stated reason 

for failing to prosecute is that he understood all communications between the parties was to go 

through the appointed neutral evaluator. Mot. at 2. However, the Court did not direct Plaintiff to

communicate with the Court or Defendants through the neutral evaluator, and the record in this 

case makes that clear. See Dkt. Nos. 17, 21, 24. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03618-MEJ Document 31 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2