Anaya v. Vasquez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), in which he argued the court erred in dismissing his civil rights claims for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff was merely attempting to relitigate the merits of the case, which is not a valid basis for Rule 60(b) relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a Rule 60(b) motion is not a vehicle for relitigating the merits of a case. The plaintiff's argument was that the court erred in its legal determination regarding the applicable statute of limitations and cause of action (Section 1983 vs. Bivens). Because the plaintiff was not asserting a procedural defect, fraud, or newly discovered evidence, but rather a disagreement with the court's prior ruling on the sufficiency of the complaint, the denial was legally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's motion is an attempt to relitigate the merits of the dismissed claims rather than asserting a valid ground for Rule 60(b) relief. The court accurately cites the distinction between Section 1983 (state actors) and Bivens (federal actors) and correctly notes that the plaintiff's disagreement with the legal conclusion of the prior order does not constitute 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect' or any other enumerated ground for relief. The reliance on Merozoite v. Thorp is appropriate for the proposition that Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RIVERA ANAYA, Case No.: 24cv0863-CAB (JLB) BOOKING #44512359, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT vs. 14 15 WARDEN V. VASQUEZ, ASSISTANT 16 WARDEN T. HARTLEY and HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR 17 LOVELESS, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Daniel Rivera Anaya, detained at the GEO Western Region Detention 22 Facility in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 23 rights action. (ECF Nos. 1-3.) On June 6, 2024, the Court dismissed this action for failure 24 to state a claim and entered final judgment after twice informing Plaintiff that the 25 Defendants named in this action, employees of the GEO Group, Inc., a private corporation 26 operating the GEO Western Region Detention Facility under a contract with the federal 27 government, must be sued for federal constitutional claims in federal court, if at all, 28 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 1 U.S. 388 (1971) rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 9 at 2, citing Agyeman 2 v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (detainees in a 3 private facility run under a federal government contract are required to bring constitutional 4 claims in federal court, if at all, pursuant to Bivens) and Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 5 409 (9th Cir. 1991) (Bivens provides a private right of action against individuals who, 6 acting under color of federal law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights).) The 7 Court found Plaintiff cannot maintain a Bivens cause of action against the individual 8 Defendants for an Eighth Amendment violation arising from the delay in providing him 9 with, or denial of, prescription eyeglasses. (Id. at 2-3, citing Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 10 118, 131 (2012) (federal inmate has no Bivens claims against private employees working 11 at a privately operated federal prison for denial of medical care or similar conduct that 12 typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law) and Karboau v. Clark, 577 13 Fed.Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of Eighth Amendment claims 14 against individual employees of GEO Group, Inc., because the exclusive remedy is 15 pursuant to state tort law).) 16 On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff constructively filed a Motion for relief from judgment 17 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 60(b). (ECF No. 13.) He seeks relief from judgment on the basis 18 that the Court erroneously found he failed to state a federal constitutional claim against the 19 Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.) 20 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “creates a private right of action against individuals who, 21 acting under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” 22 Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). “Section 1983, however, 23 provides no right of action against federal (rather than state) officials.” Russell v. United 24 States Dept. of the Army, 191 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1999). As the Cout notified 25 Plaintiff, because he is in federal not state custody, and has named a federal not state actors, 26 his complaint is properly construed pursuant to Bivens rather than under § 1983. See Van 27 Strum, 940 F.2d at 409 (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save 28 for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.”) 1 Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 2 ||excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a 3 || satisfied, released, or discharged judgment, a judgment which is “based on an earlier 4 judgment which has been reversed or vacated,” or a judgment which is no longer equitable; 5 (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff has 6 ||satisfied none of those provisions. Rather, he merely disagrees with the Court’s 7 || determination that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which 8 |/is an insufficient basis to grant relief. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 9 || 1995) (a Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to relitigate the same issues and arguments on 10 || which a court has already ruled). 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 9, 2024 (6 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3