Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02303/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02303-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIAN SIMONIS, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-08-2303 LKK/CMK

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

LARRY FITCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court previously entered judgment against plaintiffs for

failure to comply with discovery orders. Plaintiff Lillian Simonis

(hereinafter “plaintiff”) requests relief from the judgment against

her and summary judgment in her favor. For the reasons set forth

below, these requests are denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff brought claims alleging unlawful seizure, kidnap,

and torture against defendants Shasta County and various named

officers thereof.

On July 10, 2009, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case

ordered plaintiff to respond to discovery requests and to pay $600

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 6
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

2

in monetary sanctions. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiff failed to do so.

Defendants moved for dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(A)(v). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this

motion and did not attend the November 5, 2009 hearing thereon.

On November 11, 2009, the Magistrate Judge submitted findings and

recommendations recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s claims

without prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the July 10, 2009 order. Dkt. No. 49. Plaintiff filed

objections. After considering these objections, the court adopted

the findings and recommendations on February 23, 2010. Dkt. No.

52. Judgment was entered the next day. Plaintiff now seeks relief

from this judgment.

Tangential to these proceedings, one of the named defendants,

Eric Magrini, filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on November 19,

2008. Dkt. No. 11. In light of the automatic stay imposed by

Magrini’s bankruptcy petition, the Magistrate Judge severed the

claims against Magrini, copying plaintiff’s complaint against him

into a separate action. Order of Feb. 17, 2009, Dkt. No. 29. The

separate action was denominated Simonis v. Magrini, No.

2:09-cv-00446-LKK-CMK, and remains stayed. Because Magrini was not

party to the subsequent discovery requests in this action,

defendants’ motion to dismiss and the entry of judgment in this

case do not affect the case against Magrini.

II. Standard

The court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Plaintiff invokes three

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

paragraphs under this subsection: Rule 60(b)(3), for fraud,

misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (b)(4), “the

judgment is void;” and (b)(6), “any other reason that justifies

relief.” Here, plaintiff’s motion is timely, in that it is brought

within two weeks of the judgment, which is undoubtedly “a

reasonable time” after the judgment was entered and within the one

year period required for a motion under (b)(3). See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(c)(1).

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(j),

when a party asks for reconsideration of a order granting or

denying a motion, the party is to set forth the material facts and

circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is

sought, including:

(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge

the prior motion was made,

(2) what ruling, decision or order was made

thereon,

(3) what new or different facts or

circumstances are claimed to exist which did

not exist or were not shown upon such prior

motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion, and

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not

shown at the time of the prior motion.

While Local Rule 230(j) provides for what “counsel shall present”

to the court upon a motion for reconsideration, the definitions

contained in Local Rule 101 define “counsel” as including pro se

litigants.

////

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Moreover, the court notes that the severance has in part 1

worked to plaintiff’s benefit: it is only because of this severance

that the claim against Magrini remains pending.

4

III. Discussion

Plaintiff presents roughly four arguments for relief.

First, plaintiff argues that defendants misrepresented the nature

of the claims against Magrini and the effect of the bankruptcy

stay. Plaintiff contends that defendants represented that these

claims were against Magrini personally, whereas plaintiff argues

that these claims are actually against Magrini’s surety.

Plaintiff apparently draws from this argument the conclusion that

the Magrini’s bankruptcy petition should not have affected this

suit, such that the stay and severance were improper. Without

addressing the substance of these contentions, the court notes

that this argument has no bearing on plaintiff’s failure to

respond to discovery orders or plaintiff’s failure to oppose the

motion to dismiss. As such, this argument cannot entitle

plaintiff to relief here.1

Second, plaintiff alleges misconduct by defendants in

inducing former plaintiff Hannah Moore to withdraw from the

lawsuit. Moore and defendants stipulated to Moore’s disimssal

of her claims in exchange for defendants’ waiver of costs and

fees. See Stipulation and Order entered Feb. 13, 2009, Dkt. No.

25. Plaintiff previously contended that Moore’s withdrawal was

secured by improper intimidation. See Plaintiff’s Notice filed

March 11, 2009, Dkt. No. 31, and Plaintiff’s Request for a Status

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Conference filed April 6, 2009, Dkt. No. 34. Again, however,

plaintiff has not offered any connection between this alleged

misconduct and plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery

requests or plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss.

Third, plaintiff contends that defendants have also refused

to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Having reviewed

the entire file, the court concludes that this is the first time

plaintiff argues that defendants have refused to respond to

discovery. Insofar as this issue could have been raised

previously but was not, it cannot demonstrate that the orders

compelling discovery and dismissing the action were improper.

Once again, the alleged conduct has inadequate connection to the

ground for dismissal.

Fourth, plaintiff contends that it is improper to dismiss

a constitutional claim for procedural reasons. Plaintiff is

correct that public policy favors resolution of claims on the

merits. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.

1995). Nonetheless, the court previously determined that

dismissal was warranted here, and plaintiff raises no new

argument on this issue.

Finally, plaintiff asserts that the prior judgment is “void”

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). This assertion is made without

argument, but is apparently merely a reiteration of the above

four grounds. Thus, plaintiff implies that the judgment is void

because the court should grant plaintiff’s motion for relief.

Because the court rejects the preceding arguments this argument

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

also fails.

Accordingly plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment,

Dkt. No. 54, is DENIED. Because the court declines to reconsider

the prior dismissal of this case, plaintiff’s concurrently filed

motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 55, is also DENIED.

Accordingly, the hearing previously set for April 19, 2010 is

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 04/14/10 Page 6 of 6