Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07793-8/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON CRUMP,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SF CITY OF,

Defendant. /

No. C06-07793 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Marlon Crump’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Set Aside Judgment

(“Mot.”). (Docket No. 86.) For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2007 the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants City of San

Francisco, Officer Angel G. Lozano, Officer Raymond Lee, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic

(collectively “Defendants”). (Docket No. 84.) That order resolved all remaining claims alleged in

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Id.)

While opposing Defendants’ summary judgment motion, Plaintiff failed to present evidence

because he assumed that the Court would consider evidence which he had already submitted with

prior complaints. (See id. at 4 n.2, 7 n.3.) Although Plaintiff did not properly submit that evidence

with his summary judgment motion, the Court nonetheless reviewed it, and found that considering

the evidence would not alter the Court’s decision. (See id.) Now, citing Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:06-cv-07793-MJJ Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6), Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside its judgment, allow him to

submit the evidence in question, and reconsider Defendants’ motion for summary judgement. (Mot.

at 4.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) allows courts to “relieve a party or its legal

representative from a final judgment . . . [that was due to] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect . . . [or] any other reason that justifies relief. ” Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b). However,

granting a 60(b) motion is discretionary, and courts need not grant the motion unless the movant has

a potentially meritorious claim. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local

No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co. Inc., 953 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1992) (denying a 60(b) motion in

order to avoid “an empty exercise”); accord Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1988)

(requiring a “colorable claim to a meritorious defense”); see also 12 James Wm. Moore et al.,

Moore’s Fed. Practice ¶ 60.24 (3d ed. 2007). 

DISCUSSION

In the present case, Plaintiff moves to set aside the judgment so that he may present evidence

that the Court already considered. (See Docket No. 84 at 4 n.2, 7 n.3.) When reviewing that

evidence in the context of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that its

submission would not have allowed Plaintiff to prevail. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff does not have a

potentially meritorious claim, and the Court sees no reason to set aside the judgment per Rule 60(b). 

See Teamsters, 953 F.2d at 20.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07793-MJJ Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2