Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00737-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Election Commission
Defendant
Keith Russell Judd
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-0737 FCD JFM PS

vs.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. On November 13, 2000, the

instant action was dismissed. Judgment was entered on the same day. On March 11, 2005,

plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the November 13, 2000

order and judgment thereon. Plaintiff seeks relief from the judgment entered herein “in the

interest of justice.” (Motion at 1.) Plaintiff is again attempting to challenge a criminal judgment

entered in United States v. Judd, a criminal action filed and adjudicated in the Western District of

Texas, Case No. 98-CR-93.

This is plaintiff’s second motion for relief from judgment filed in the instant

action. On July 30, 2001, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment, which was denied by

the district court on February 12, 2002. 

/////

Case 2:00-cv-00737-FCD-JFM Document 40 Filed 05/09/05 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

1

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

 It appears plaintiff has already done so. Western District of Texas court records reflect

that a jury verdict was entered against plaintiff on June 24, 1999, and judgment was entered on

September 29, 1999. Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 31, 2000

(docket no. 462), which was denied by order filed April 10, 2000 (docket no. 463.) Plaintiff filed

an amended § 2255 motion on March 10, 2003 (docket no. 606), which was denied by order filed

March 12, 2003 (docket no. 607). Plaintiff is advised that he cannot circumvent orders issued in

the Western District of Texas by filing motions in the Eastern District of California.

2

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order,

or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” 

Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annunity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th

Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff has failed to raise any grounds which would justify relief from the

judgment entered in this action. Moreover, court records indicate that plaintiff first filed a

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in this district on September 10, 2001, in CIV S-01-1727

EJG PAN P.1 However, because plaintiff was not serving a sentence imposed by the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, this court lacked jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s attempted attack on a “Family Violence Protective Order” issued by the 244th Judicial

District Court of Ector County, Texas. (Id., October 2, 2001 Order at 1.) Thus, CIV S-01-1727

EJG PAN was dismissed by the district court on October 2, 2001. 

The instant action was dismissed after plaintiff failed to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff is advised that this court lacks jurisdiction over actions taken by the

Western District of Texas. Plaintiff must raise any challenges to actions taken in 98-CR-93 in

the Western District of Texas.2

Case 2:00-cv-00737-FCD-JFM Document 40 Filed 05/09/05 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

3

In accordance with the above, plaintiff has not shown any grounds which justify

relief from the judgment entered in this action. Thus, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

plaintiff’s March 11, 2005 motion for relief from judgment be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 6, 2005. 

001; judd0737.60b

Case 2:00-cv-00737-FCD-JFM Document 40 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 3