Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00855/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00855-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

1 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OWEN LINO.,

CDCR #J-45685, Civil No. 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION FROM

COURT’S ORDER AND

JUDGMENT; AND 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

TRANSCRIPTS AS MOOT 

[ECF Nos. 11, 12]

vs.

B. MOSKOWITZ; UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

I.

Procedural History

On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Petition” against United States District Judge Barry

Ted Moskowitz [ECF No. 1]. On May 23, 2011, this Court dismissed this action for: (1) failing

to pay the $350 filing fee requested by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); (2) alternatively failing to move to

proceed IFP; and (3) as frivolous. See May 23, 2011 Order at 3. Plaintiff was not granted leave

to amend and the Court certified that an IFP appeal from the Order would not be taken in good

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Id.

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 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

2 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration from Court’s Order

and Judgment” and “Motion Requesting Court’s Order to Clerk for it’s Case Transcripts” [ECF

Nos. 11, 12]. In the first Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the Court’s May

23, 2011 Order dismissing this action as frivolous. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notice

of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Court’s May 23, 2011 Order [ECF No.

8]. However, the Appeal was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit on September 14, 2011 for failing

to file a timely Notice of Appeal [ECF No. 13]. Thus, this Court has regained jurisdiction over

the matter. See Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986).

Because Plaintiff’s Appeal in this action has been dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s

Order of Case Transcripts and Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal is DENIED as moot.

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion

A. Standard of Review

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be

filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c). Reconsideration

under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifying relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

B. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff filed his “Petition for Writ of Mandate” because he believed that District Judge

Moskowitz was “deliberately delaying the processing of my complaint and motion requesting

for 3-Judge Court.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 4.) Plaintiff is referring to a separate § 1983 civil rights

matter that he filed in 2010. See Lino v. Kellerman, et al., S.D. Civil Case No. 10cv0449 MMA

(PCL). A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United

States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.

1992).

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 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

3 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

While District Judge Moskowitz was initially assigned to that matter, it was later

transferred to District Judge Michael Anello pursuant to the Court’s low number rule. A review

of the Court’s docket in this previous matter shows that Plaintiff requested numerous extensions

of time to file amended pleadings, all of which were granted by the Court. Plaintiff’s allegations

that District Judge Moskowitz somehow was deliberately delaying his case is frivolous as it is

clear from the record that any delays in this previous matter were on the part of Plaintiff. 

In sum, a motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because Plaintiff is

unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts to binding

precedent or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision. See 11 Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2858 (Supp. 2007) (citing Edwards v.

Velvac, Inc., 19 F.R.D. 504, 507 (D. Wis. 1956)). Thus, without more, the Court finds Plaintiff

has failed to show that the Court rendered a “manifestly unjust decision,” and has further failed

to identify any intervening changes in controlling law which justify reconsideration of the

Court’s Order. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255; School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

III.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 11] is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s Order to Clerk for Case Transcripts and Motion to Proceed IFP

on Appeal [ECF No. 12] is hereby DENIED as moot.

The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous

and therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th

Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be

frivolous).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 12, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 3