Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-18/pdf.json

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

---

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 

FILED'
 I APR 1 0 lOll I ~~=...~U.~S.~ifi~COURT:!~1A BY DflIIU1it 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY, CASE NO. 08cv408-WQH-BLM 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

vs. 

D. WILSON, S.D.P.D.; E. TAGABAN, 

S.D.P.D.; DET. LEMUS, S.D.P.D.; SGT. 

GRIFFIN, S.D.P.D., 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 198), the Motion to Remand Case to District Court pending a ruling 

on the Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF No. 200), and the Motion for Status of Motion to 

Vacate (ECF No. 204) filed by Plaintiff William John Daughtery. 

I. Background 

On July 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 173). 

No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 

On August 19,2011, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted 

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECFNo. 174). On August 19,2011, Judgment 

was entered and this case was closed. (ECF No. 175). 

On September 13,2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a "Motion 

- 1 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM 

.. . I t 

, ~ 

 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 205 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 5
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 

to Reconsider Order Pursuant to FRCP Rule(s) 59 and 60(b)." (ECF No. 177). Plaintiff stated 

that he did not receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and he "cannot request 

reconsideration on other grounds because [he] ha[s] no copy of the Report [and 

Recommendation]." Id. at 2. 

On September 14,2011, the Court issued an Order. (ECF No. 178). The Court stated: 

The Court construes Plaintiff s "Motion to Reconsider Order Pursuant to 

FRCP Rule( s) 59 and 60(b)" to be a motion for an extension of time to file a 

motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and/or 60(b) after 

Plaintiffhas had an oP1?ortunity to review the Report and Recommendation. So 

construed, the motion IS granted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for an extension of 

time to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and/or 

60(b) is GRANTED. (ECF No. 177). No later than November 15,2011, 

Plaintiff may file a motion pursuant to Rules 59 and/or 60(b). The Clerk ofthe 

Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Report and Recommendation filed on 

July 1,2011. 

Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). 

On September 19,2011, the Clerk of the Court received a Notice of Appeal of the 

August 19,2011 Order ofthe Court (ECF No. 179) and a "Motion for Relief from Judgment 

Pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 60(b) or Alternatively, to Alter, Amend Judgment Pursuant to 

F .R.C.P. Rules 52(b) and 59( e), 60(b )" ("Motion for Relief from Judgment"). (ECF No. 183). 

The Court construed the Motion for Relief from Judgment to be a motion for an indication 

pursuant to Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F .2d 862, 869 (9th Cir. 1976). (ECF No. 187). 

The motion was granted and the Court indicated that it would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion. 

Id. 

On November 4, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order 

stating: "[T]he district court issued an order indicating its willingness to entertain appellant's 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. This appeal is remanded to the district court 

for the limited purpose ofenabling the district court to consider appellant's motion." (ECF No. 

190 at 1 ) (citations omitted). 

On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of"all materials ... as 

evidence in support ofPlaintiffs motion in opposition to summary judgment ... and that said 

materials be ruled authenticated and admissible at trial." (ECF No. 192 at 1). 

-2- 08cv408-WHQ-BLM 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 205 Filed 04/10/12 Page 2 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 196). Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs Objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 198) and a Motion to Remand Case to District Court pending a ruling 

on the Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF No. 2(0). On November 18,2011, Defendants filed 

an Opposition to the Motion to Vacate Judgment. (ECF No. 202). On November 30,2011, 

Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 203). 

II. Discussion 

Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the judgment entered in this case and consider 

Plaintiffs objection to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff contends that he did not 

receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation, although he kept the Court apprised of 

changes in his address. Plaintiff contends that he did not have an opportunity to oppose the 

Report and Recommendation, so his objections were not considered by the Court de novo. 

Defendants contend that the judgment should not be disturbed. Defendants contend that 

it "seems extremely improbable" that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 202 at 4). Defendants contend that it is more likely that Plaintiff 

"simply failed to timely respond." Id. Defendants contend that they would be prejudiced if 

the judgment were vacated because "Defendants should be allowed at some point to be free 

from the worry and stress ofhaving to defend themselves against an occurrence that happened 

over five years ago." Id. at 5. 

Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ... from 

a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, s.t!!Prise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

which by due dihgence could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct ofan 

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) tile judgment has been satisfied ... ; 

or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-30 (2005) (Rule 60(b) 

applies to habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). The burden ofproof is on the party 

- 3 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM 

, '~ 

',.'.. i' 

I, 

"~; , ,

. 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 205 Filed 04/10/12 Page 3 of 5
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 

bringing the Rule 60(b) motion. See Rufo v.Inmates ofSuffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,383 

(1992); see also Sch. Dist. No. JJv. ACandS, Inc., 5 F .3d 1255,1262 (9th Cir.1993)(citations 

omitted). 

To justify relief under Rule 60(b )(1), a party must show "excusable neglect." Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b)(I). "The determination ofwhether neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable 

one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. To 

determine when neglect is excusable, we conduct the equitable analysis ... by examining ... : (I) 

the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in 

good faith." Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). "To 

justify relief under subsection (6) [of Rule 60], a party must show 'extraordinary 

circumstances' suggesting that the party is faultless in the delay." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 

BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380,393 (1993). Courts "useRule60(b)(6) sparingly 

as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice. To receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), 

a party must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable 

to prosecute his case." Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotations 

omitted); see also Cmty. Dental Servs. V Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). "Relief 

under Rule 60(b)( 6) will not be granted unless the moving party is able to show both injury and 

circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its interest." Gardner v. 

Martino, 563 F.3d 981,991-92 (9th Cir. 2009). 

After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated injury 

because he had no opportunity to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffhas demonstrated that his inability to timely file objections to the 

Report and Recommendation resulted from circumstances beyond his control. The Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances which prevented or 

rendered him unable to prosecute his case" sufficient to warrant relief from judgment. 

III 

III 

-4- 08cv408·WHQ·BLM 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 205 Filed 04/10/12 Page 4 of 5
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 

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) (ECF No. 198) filed by Plaintiff William John Daughtery is GRANTED. The August 

19,2011 Order adopting the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 174) and the August 19, 

2011 Judgment (ECF No. 175) are VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion to Remand Case to District Court 

pending a ruling on the Motion to Vacate Judgment (ECF No. 200) and Motion for Status of 

Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 204) filed by Plaintiff William John Daughtery are DENIED as 

moot. 

Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 196), a 

motion for the evidence submitted in support ofPlaintiffs Opposition to Summary Judgment 

to be ruled authenticated and admissible (ECF No. 192), and additional evidence (ECF No. 

198-1 through 198-4). Defendants shall file any reply to these filings (ECF Nos. 192, 196, and 

198-1 through 198-4) by no later than 21 days from the date ofthis Order. 

I 

DATED: 

,!',',; 

,

,

- 5 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM 

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 205 Filed 04/10/12 Page 5 of 5