Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00749-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GEORGE SPITTAL,

NO. CIV. S-05-749 FCD DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, et al.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b), of this court’s November 28, 2005 order, adopting the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, filed November

2, 2005 (“F&R”). Said F&R (1) granted defendants’ motions to 1

dismiss, (2) denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 

(3) denied plaintiff’s motion re: contempt, and (4) denied

defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 

Case 2:05-cv-00749-FCD-DAD Document 58 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration 2

of a final judgment is appropriate only where (1) the court is

presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the court committed

“clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or

(3) there is an intervening change in the controlling law. School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

(9th Cir. 1993). 

2

With respect to the motions to dismiss, the magistrate judge

granted defendants United States District Judge William Shubb and

United States Magistrate Judge Peter Nowinski’s motion, finding

them “absolutely immune from suit” (F&R at 6:14), and granted the

School District defendants’ motion, finding them entitled to

qualified immunity (Id. at 6:21). In granting these motions, the

magistrate judge summarily denied plaintiff’s “perfunctory motion

for summary judgment” wherein plaintiff simply made the

“unsupported assertion” that defendants Judge Shubb and Judge

Nowinski “‘lied’ in connection with plaintiff’s earlier action so

as to ‘deny him access to a jury trial.’” (Id. at 10:21-24.) The

magistrate judge likewise denied plaintiff’s motion re: contempt

as “perfunctory and unsupported.” (Id. at 11:1.) In that

motion, plaintiff sought an order holding Assistant United States

Attorney Bobbie Montoya in contempt for “‘lying on behalf of

defendants Shubb and Nowinski.’” (Id. at 11:3-4.)

Plaintiff now moves under Rule 60(b) for relief from

judgment entered pursuant to the court’s November 28 order. 

However, as with his prior motions, plaintiff offers nothing but

“baseless and harassing” accusations which do not merit analysis

at all, let alone meet the standard for relief under Rule 60(b).2

(Id. at 11:6.) Indeed, plaintiff rests his motion on the bald

and outrageous accusation that the “Damrell/Drozd finding is a

Case 2:05-cv-00749-FCD-DAD Document 58 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

racist lie–a sick terrorist tactic. Therefor, the Court’s Order

should be vacated. . . . Sick Judges should be removed from [the]

Bench and Liars are Sick!” (Pl.’s Rule 60(b) Mot., filed Dec. 5,

2005.) That plaintiff’s motion lacks any merit whatsoever is

self-evident. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

In a seeming related motion/request, plaintiff asks the

court to “Hold J. Telford, M. Pott and Drozd in Contempt for

lying to [the] Court.” (Pl.’s Mot., filed Dec. 19, 2005.) Like

his Rule 60(b) motion, this motion is utterly without merit,

based again on unsupported and harassing accusations. (Id. at 1

[seeking an order “Declar[ing] Racist/Nazi Lying Techniques of

Drozd Used to Misstate Spittal’s Speech On Care of Disabled

Blacks To Be of No Public Interest For it Was Only a Personal

Dispute Unconstitutional”]).

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)

motion (Docket #49) and his further motion re: contempt (Docket

#52) are HEREBY DENIED. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that while the court did not

previously declare him a vexatious litigant, that issue was

specifically reserved by the court for renewal by defendants

should plaintiff “continue to engage in such abusive conduct.” 

(F&R at 11:21-22.) If further filings are made of the same

nature as those discussed herein, it appears that a declaration

of vexatious litigant may be necessary and warranted to prevent

abuse to the defendants and a waste of this court’s judicial 

resources.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00749-FCD-DAD Document 58 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: January 24, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00749-FCD-DAD Document 58 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 4