Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

-1- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM DAWES,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

HOWARD AUSBURY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)

ORDER: 

CONSTRUING DOCUMENT AS A 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 111] 

DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Dawes (“Dawes”) is a California inmate who has filed a pro se 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. On April 19, 2021, the 

Court stayed this case until Dawes’s related criminal case in state court was resolved. 

See Doc. No. 46; see also S.D. Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. In August of 2024, Dawes’s

state criminal charges were dismissed because of his ongoing incompetency, and 

Defendants then asked this Court to lift the stay and hold a hearing to appoint a guardian 

ad litem for Dawes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), which requires the 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 112 Filed 12/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 4
-2- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Court to “appoint a guardian ad litem ⸺ or issue another appropriate order ⸺ to protect 

a[n] incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); see

Doc. No. 100-1 at 13; Doc. No. 100-2 at 2. In an August 14, 2024 order, this Court lifted 

the stay and determined that to meet its obligation under Rule 17(c)(2), it would 

reconsider Dawes’s motions to appoint counsel and referred the matter to the Court’s Pro 

Bono Panel. Id. 

Dawes filed an objection to the appointment of counsel, which the Court overruled; 

pro bono counsel was appointed on September 24, 2024. See Doc. Nos. 105, 106. 

Dawes then filed a motion entitled “Motion to [Q]uash Pro Bono Attorneys, in which 

Dawes explained he would not cooperate with pro bono counsel. Doc. No. 107. In an 

October 22, 2024 order, the Court relieved pro bono counsel and advised Dawes that he 

could not proceed with this matter unless he named an attorney who could represent him 

or named an individual, who was represented by an attorney, who would act as a 

guardian ad litem, by December 3, 2024. See Doc. No. 108 at 6. Dawes was advised that 

if he did not do so, the Court would administratively close this case. Id. In the 

alternative, Dawes was advised he could choose to voluntarily dismiss his case. Id. An 

extension of time was granted on December 5, 2023, and Dawes was given until January 

1, 2025 to respond to the Court’s October 22, 2024 order. See Doc. No. 110.

II. DISCUSSION

Dawes has filed a document entitled “Notice of Change of Address [and] Motion 

to Appeal Right to State a Claim.” Doc. No. 111. In it, Dawes claims he was transferred 

to the San Diego County Jail without authorization from the Supreme Court and denied 

his right to a speedy trial in case no. SCS287189. Id. at 1. He also complains he is being 

denied good time credits for Orange County Superior Court case no. 05CG3042 while in 

the San Diego County Jail, has been denied the right to parole, and has been sentenced to 

life without the possibility of parole without a trial by jury. Id. He claims his conviction 

in case no. 05CG3042 is illegal because “the Superior Court of California for County of 

Orange failed to disclose . . . that J[ohn] Paul Flores, a Mexican, is a superior race to 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 112 Filed 12/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
-3- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

German Nazis and ha[s] the right to rob Natural Born Citizens of the United States . . . .” 

Id. at 2. He also claims that the “Superior Court judge failed to disclose that Ruben 

Mondojuando and his father had a legal right to rape and molest my sister Lauren Dawes 

being Mexican superior to German descendants who[se] relative is a public defender.” 

Id. He asks this Court to transfer him to Germany “where [he] could work and have the 

liberty to be drug free and own property.” Id. at 3. 

The Court has no power to transfer Dawes from the state correctional institution in 

which he is incarcerated to Germany. Although it is difficult to discern what further 

relief Dawes seeks in his motion because much of what he writes is delusional, the Court 

will construe the motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 22, 2024 

order. 

“A motion for reconsideration may be brought under either Fed.R.Civ.P (“FRCP”) 

59(e) or 60(b).” In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 

1994) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)). “A

district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. 

Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rule 

60(b) permits relief from a judgment for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, 

released, or discharged judgment, a judgment which is “based on an earlier judgment 

which has been reversed or vacated,” or a judgment which is no longer equitable; or (6) 

“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

No judgment has yet been entered in this case. Further, the Court has not 

“committed clear error,” nor is there is “an intervening change in the controlling law.” 

Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Moreover, the Court finds there has been no mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 112 Filed 12/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
-4- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

judgment, a satisfied, released, or discharged judgment, a judgment which is “based on 

an earlier judgment which has been reversed or vacated,” or a judgment which is no 

longer equitable, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONSTRUES Dawes’s “Motion to Appeal 

Right to State a Claim” [Doc. No. 111] as a motion for reconsideration, and DENIES the 

motion. The Court reminds Dawes that he may not proceed in this matter until he is 

either represented by an attorney or by a guardian ad litem who is represented by an 

attorney, and that he must, no later than January 21, 2025, respond to the Court by 

either: 

1. Naming an attorney who will represent him in this matter; or

2. Naming an individual, who is represented by an attorney, who will act as his

guardian ad litem in this matter.1

In the alternative, Plaintiff Dawes may choose to voluntarily dismiss his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2024

1 Dawes is advised that if he names an attorney who will represent him in this matter, he must comply 

with Local Rule 83.3(f)(2). Local Rule 83.3(f)(2) states: “When an attorney of record for any person 

ceases to act for a party, such party must appear in person or appoint another attorney by a written 

substitution of attorney signed by the party, the attorney ceasing to act, and the newly appointed 

attorney, or by a written designation filed in the case and served upon the attorney ceasing to act, unless 

attorney is deceased, in which event the designation of a new attorney will so state. Until such 

substitution is approved by the Court, the authority of the attorney of record will continue for all proper 

purposes.” 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 112 Filed 12/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 4