Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02572/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02572-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEITH THOMAS, CASE NO. 10-CV-2572 BEN (POR) 

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

vs. VACATE JUDGMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; et [Docket No.7] 

aI., 

Res ondents. 

Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Docket No.7.) For 

the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND 

In the related case, Thomas v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Case No. 09­

CV-2916 W (WVG), Judge Thomas Whelan dismissed Petitioner's second amended complaint and 

denied leave to amend. (Pet., Exh. E.) Petitioner appealed, and his appeal was summarily denied. 

(Case No. 09-CV-2916 W (WVG), Docket Nos. 21 & 22.) 

On December 6,2010, Petitioner filed the present Petition. Petitioner invoked jurisdiction 

under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), asking the Court to compel, or issue mandamus to, 

Judge Whelan to (1) reopen Case No. 09-CV-2916 W (WVG); (2) "remand the case to trial;" and (3) 

"give summary judgment in favor" of Petitioner. (Pet. at 6.) The Petition was dismissed because it 

was frivolous as a matter of law on December 29, 2010. (Docket No.3.) On February 24,2012, 

- 1 - IOCV2572 

Case 3:10-cv-02572-BEN-POR Document 8 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 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 

Petitioner moved to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (Docket No.7.) 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner moves to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(l) and (4). 

Rule 60(b) allows for reconsideration due to: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier 

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer 

equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

FED. R. Cry. P. 60(b). 

"A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time-and forreasons (1), (2), 

and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." 

FED. R. Crv. P. 60( c)( 1). As over a year passed before Petitioner filed the Motion to Vacate Judgment, 

Petitioner may not move to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)( 1). Accordingly, the Court will analyze 

the Motion to Vacate Judgment only under Rule 60(b)(4). 

Petitioner argues that (1) the Court deprived Petitioner of the right to sue; and (2) the Court 

failed to allow Petitioner to amend his complaint. Petitioner, however, has not shown that the previous 

judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4). Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May jK,2012 

- 2- lOCV2572 

Case 3:10-cv-02572-BEN-POR Document 8 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 2