Fuller v. Green Dot Bank
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) after the case was closed for failure to file an amended complaint. The court granted the motion, vacated the clerk's judgment, and ordered the case reopened to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 25, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is granted.“Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, requiring a showing of injury and circumstances beyond the party's control. The plaintiff alleged surgery and hospitalization prevented him from monitoring mail, which constitutes a plausible 'extraordinary circumstance' under Ninth Circuit precedent. While the order is brief and does not explicitly detail the 'injury' prong beyond the dismissal itself, the factual basis provided is sufficient to support the equitable remedy in a pro se context. |
The Clerk's Judgment is vacated and the case is reopened.“The Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 6) is VACATED, and the Clerk shall reopen this case.” | agree with court Vacatur of the judgment is the necessary procedural consequence of granting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court correctly identified that the prior dismissal was with leave to amend, meaning the underlying action was not finally resolved on the merits but was closed due to procedural default. Reopening the case to allow the amendment is consistent with the initial dismissal order. |
Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint by October 25, 2022.“Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with the Court on or before October 25, 2022.” | agree with court The court set a reasonable deadline for the amended complaint and provided a clear warning that failure to comply would result in final judgment. This aligns with the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and the initial order which granted leave to amend. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies this standard to the specific facts alleged by the plaintiff (surgery and hospitalization preventing mail monitoring). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a pro se motion of this nature, as it connects the factual allegation to the legal requirement of 'circumstances beyond his control.'
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 STANLEY FULLER, Case No. 22-cv-01043-BAS-BGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF No. 8) 15 v.
16 GREEN DOT BANK,
17 Defendant.
18 19 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 8.) For the following reasons, the Court 23 GRANTS Plaintiff’s request. 24 On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant. (ECF No. 25 1.) On July 25, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend 26 for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and failure to comply with 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (ECF No. 4.) The Court’s Order allowed Plaintiff 1 amended complaint. On August 25, 2022, the Court issued an Order closing the case 2 (ECF No. 5), and the Clerk of Court issued Judgment against Plaintiff (ECF No. 6). 3 On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 4 8.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows a court to relieve a party from 6 a final judgment or order for any reason that justifies relief. “A party moving for relief 7 under Rule 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 8 control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.’” 9 Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer 10 Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Ninth Circuit has 11 cautioned that Rule 60(b)(6) is to be “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 12 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 13 circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 14 erroneous judgment.” Id. (quoting Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103). 15 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated relief from judgment is 16 appropriate. Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to monitor his incoming mail because 17 he underwent surgery and was hospitalized. (ECF No. 8.) The Court will vacate the 18 Clerk’s Judgment, and Plaintiff will be allowed to amend his Complaint. 19 Accordingly, as ordered below, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on or before 20 than October 25, 2022. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file an amended 21 complaint on or before October 25, 2022, will result in a final judgment in favor of 22 Defendant. 23 In light of the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 8) is 25 GRANTED. 26 2. The Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 6) is VACATED, and the Clerk 27 shall reopen this case. 1 4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with the Court on or 2 before October 25, 2022. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ||DATED: September 28, 2022 ( yt lig _( Ly harks 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28