Opinion
CASE NO. 13-CV-1193-GPC-(PCL)
2013-10-03
DARRYL DUNSMORE, Petitioner, v. PARAMO, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
RULE 60(b) MOTION
[Doc. No. 21]
Now before the Court is Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion. [Doc. No. 21.] For the following reasons, Petitioner's motion shall be DENIED.
Background
In his motion, Petitioner "attacks a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings and procedural ruling of this Court on August 27, 2013."(Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner contends that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is corrupt, bias, and prejudicial towards Petitioner, and as a result, made procedural rulings contrary to law. (Id.) Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Court incorrectly rejected documents he attempted to file with the Court.
Petitioner is referring to the notice of document discrepancies rejecting document: Objection and Motion for Rehearing En Banc in Support of Motion for Counsel... from Darryl Dunsmore. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation, Civ. L. Rule 7.1: Lacking memorandum of points and authorities in support as a separate document, OTHER: multi-part document. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is NOT to be filed, but instead REJECTED and it is ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties. Counsel is advised that any further failure to comply with the Local Rules may lead to penalties pursuant to Local Rule 83.1.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(skh) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
In support of his motion, Petitioner cites, Butz v. Mendoza-Powers, 474 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 2007), arguing that a Rule 60(b) motion is appropriate when attacking a defect in the integrity of the Court or procedural ruling. Although Rule 60(b) is discussed in Butz, Petitioner incorrectly cites its holding.
In Butz, the district court dismissed Butz's petition for failure to pay that court's $5.00 filing fee. Several years later, the Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the order to dismiss. This case does not discuss a "court's integrity" or " procedural rulings" as it relates to a Rule 60(b) motion.
Legal Standard
Generally, motions for reconsideration are decided within the discretion of the district court. However, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a party may be relieved from a "final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."
Discussion
Since Petitioner does not specify which reason under Rule 60(b) he is relying on to challenge the Court's order rejecting his documents filed on August 28, 2013, the Court will consider his motion as a Rule 60(b)(6). According to Rule 60(b)(6) parties may be relieved from final judgments, orders, or proceedings for "any other reason that justifies relief."
Here, Petitioner is challenging the rejection of documents that the Court found, according to local rules, to be filed incorrectly. The Court reasoned that the documents Petitioner attempted to file did not comply with Local Rules, Civ. L. Rule 5.1, Civ. L. Rule 7.1, and were a multi-part motion filed as a single document.[Doc. No. 15.] As a result, the Court was within its discretion to accept or reject the document pursuant to the local rules. The Court will also note that in an effort to expedite Petitioner's case it has accepted several documents in the past from Petitioner that contained filing discrepancies. [Doc. No. 5, 10.]
Petitioner attempted to file a single document that contained several requests labeled "Objection and Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration En Banc in Support of Motion for Counsel, Lodgment of Discovery and Subpoenas Waiver of Rules" that was undated and lacked a memorandum of points and authorities in support of each contention as a separate document(s). [Doc. No.15 at 1.]
--------
Accordingly, Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Peter C. Lewis
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel
All Counsel of Record