Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02923/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02923-8/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD V. RAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAESAR BASA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-02923-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 

This is a closed civil rights matter. Summary judgment was granted in favor of 

Defendants, and judgment entered on March 27, 2015. Dkts. 72, 73. On March 24, 2016, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s ruling. Dkt. 77. The mandate issued on 

September 16, 2016. Dkt. 79. 

On April 21, 2016 and September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions to vacate the order 

granting summary judgment for Defendants, which the Court construes to be motions for relief 

from judgment, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) from its order granting summary 

judgment. Dkts. 78, 81. 

Where, as here, the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for 

relief from judgment may be based on Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under 

Rule 60(b), a movant may seek relief from a final judgment for six reasons: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence 

could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; 

(4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying 

relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 

1993). Such a motion must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1)-

Case 4:11-cv-02923-YGR Document 82 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(3), no later than one year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Here, 

Plaintiff seeks relief under Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6). Dkt. 81 at 1.

As noted above, Petitioner filed his motions for relief from judgment in April 2016 and in 

September 2016, which are both more than a year after entry of judgment on March 27, 2015. 

Therefore, to the extent that these motions seek relief under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(3), such

motions are DENIED as untimely. See Nevitt v. U.S., 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he 

one-year limitation period is not tolled during an appeal.”)

Plaintiff also relies upon Rule 60(b)(6) as a basis for reconsideration, which is the rule 

permits a court to set aside a judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” “Judgments are 

not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Rule is used sparingly as an equitable remedy 

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances 

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” 

Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such extraordinary circumstances exist in 

this case. Plaintiff makes conclusory arguments that the Court’s March 27, 2015 Order granting 

summary judgment is “clearly erroneous as a matter of law.” Dkt. 78 at 1. The Ninth Circuit has 

found that this Court “properly granted summary judgment on [Petitioner’s] due process claims 

because [Petitioner] failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he filed his 

action within the statute of limitations.” Dkt. 77 at 2. The Ninth Circuit further found that this 

Court “properly concluded that [Petitioner] was not entitled to equitable tolling or equitable 

estoppel, and did not establish a continuing violation of his rights.” Id. Finally, the Ninth Circuit 

found that this Court “properly granted summary judgment on [Petitioner’s] § 1983 defamation 

claim against Philips because [Petitioner] failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether Ray did not receive due process.” Id. at 2-3. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 

valid ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the judgment under any of the 

aforementioned subsections of Rule 60(b). Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment are

DENIED. Dkts. 78, 81. 

Case 4:11-cv-02923-YGR Document 82 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

No further filings will be accepted in this case file as this particular action is closed. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 78 and 81.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

November 23, 2016

Case 4:11-cv-02923-YGR Document 82 Filed 11/23/16 Page 3 of 3