Opinion
No. CV 19-05096-PHX-MTL (CDB)
04-29-2021
DaJuan Torrell Williams, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Winget, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff DaJuan Torrell Williams, who is currently confined in Yuma County Detention Center in Yuma, Arizona, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 16.) Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment and/or to Alter or Amend Judgment, which Defendants oppose. (Docs. 84, 89.)
The Court will address the remaining motions by separate Order.
On screening Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Winget, Tribolet, Verdugo, Valencia, Villanueva, Cornejo, and Lopez and directed them to answer. (Doc. 17.) The Court dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.)
On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and the Court denied the motion on February 26, 2021. (Docs. 52, 55, 72.) The Court also dismissed Defendants Winget, Verdugo, Valencia, and Cornejo for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 72.)
On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Relief from Judgement and/or to Alter or Amend Judgement. (Doc. 84.) In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 60(b)(6), and 59(e) from the February 26, 2021 Order dismissing Defendants Winget, Verdugo, Valencia, and Cornejo and denying Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 84.) In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the proceedings pending his interlocutory appeal of the February 26, 2021 Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id.)
Relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is not available to Plaintiff at this time because Rule 60(b) only allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding, and the Order from which Plaintiff seeks relief did not address all of the claims in this action and are therefore not final orders. Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012) ("An order denying leave to amend a complaint is not appealable.") (citation omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff does not identify any "special circumstances" that would render the February 26, 2021 Order an "appealable final order" for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(6). Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1998).
Similarly, Plaintiff cannot bring his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) at this time because no judgment has been entered, and the February 26, 2021 Order is not an appealable interlocutory order. See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that Rule 59(e) only applies to final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders); cf. Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 1980) ("Because the orders appealed from dismiss the action as to only some of the defendants, it is clear that they were not final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 at the time they were entered. Moreover, plaintiffs did not obtain the interlocutory certificate required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).").
Finally, the Court will also deny Plaintiff's request to stay the action pending the results of his interlocutory appeal (Doc. 85) of the February 26, 2021 Order to the Ninth Circuit. On April 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an Advance Decision denying Plaintiff's appeal "because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable." (Doc. 91.) Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment and/or to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 84), and the Motion is denied.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2021.
/s/_________
Michael T. Liburdi
United States District Judge