Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122-13/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 MOTIONS TO LIFT 

STAY AS MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION;

[Doc. Nos. 84, 86]

DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. Nos. 84, 86]

Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has brought this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ausbury, Bravo, 

Gene, Ugalde, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 

previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of six months pending the 

outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 68; see also S.D. 

Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court agreed and extended the stay through February 16, 

2024. See Doc. No. 69. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 88 Filed 02/21/24 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

Defendants filed a Status Report on February 6, 2024 advising the Court that a 

further stay is warranted due to continued litigation in Plaintiff’s pending criminal 

proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s competency. See Doc. No. 82. The 

Court concluded in an Order filed on February 13, 2024 that upon due consideration of 

the supporting declaration of defense counsel and the relevant factors set forth in Keating 

v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324–25 (9th Cir. 1995), a further stay of this 

action was appropriate. See Doc. No. 83. The Court stayed this action through August

16, 2024. 

On February 12, 2024, the Court received a Motion to Lift Stay and a Motion to 

Lift Stay and Proceed, which were not docketed until February 15, 2024. See Doc. Nos. 

84–87. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. Nos. 84, 86) as 

Motions for Reconsideration. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for reconsideration may be brought under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). In 

re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 2994). “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). Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief 

and may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Alva v. County 

of San Bernardino, No. EDCV 22-130-RGK (KKx), 2022 WL 2965771, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 88 Filed 02/21/24 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

Feb. 10, 2022) (citing Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 

1992)). 

DISCUSSION

Dawes asks lift the stay because “defendants have erroneously filed on the wrong 

case number,” “I was filing another civil suit against the courts for retaliation,” and “I 

was also filing another habeas corpus [petition] in the Supreme Court of California in 

regards to People v. King and [the] 5th Amendment clause of double jeopardy.” Doc. No. 

84 at 1. He also claims he was found not to have a mental illness in 2008, and alleges 

“the state has used [California Penal Code sections] 2602 and 1370 which both are 

involuntary medication to retaliate against me in my legal right to peacefully address the 

courts and take my claims before a jury.” Id. at 3. He alleges that “officers took secured 

property for public use without just compensation,” and notes there is a “four year statute 

of limitations on a trial.” Doc. No. 86 at 2. He further claims he “plan[s] to show a jury 

that records were destroyed and witnesses were lost,” and that “the statute of limitations 

on a competency hearing trial is three years.” Id. 

Subsection (1), (3), (4), and (5) of Rule 60(b) do not apply here. With respect to 

subsections (2) and (6) of Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e), Dawes has not alleged any “newly 

discovered evidence,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); 

Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. The Court’s February 13, 2024 Order continuing the stay was 

based on Defendants’ assertion that Dawes was found incompetent to stand trial by the 

San Diego Superior Court on January 26, 2024, see Doc. No. 82, and Dawes does not 

provide any evidence to contradict this. Further, Dawes has not demonstrated that the 

court “committed clear error,” or that there has been “an intervening change in the 

controlling law.” Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Having construed Dawes’s Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Lift Stay and 

Proceed (Doc. Nos. 84, 86) as Motions for Reconsideration, the Court DENIES the 

motions. The case remains stayed until August 16, 2024. Defendants are ORDERED to 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 88 Filed 02/21/24 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

submit a status report no later than five (5) court days prior to the expiration of the stay 

advising the Court regarding the related criminal proceedings and indicating whether 

circumstances warrant a further stay of these proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2024

 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 88 Filed 02/21/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 4