Holger v. Romain et al

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LOUIS HOLGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SONIA R. ROMAIN, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. C22-02 MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Louis Holger’s Motion For Relief
From Judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials,
the Court DENIES the Motion.
BACKGROUND
The Court issued an Order of Dismissal, dismissing this action with prejudice
given the Complaint’s frivolous claims and claims barred by various immunities. (Dkt.
No. 14.) The Clerk entered separate judgment. (Dkt. No. 15.) Invoking Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60, Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the Order and Judgment for three
Case 2:22-cv-00002-MJP Document 25 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 5

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
reasons: (1) “The bogus order of dismissal is lacking the seal of the court & the signature
of the clerk of court, as is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1691” (Mot. at 2 (Dkt. No. 24)): (2)
“The bogus order & false document, both, violate Plaintiff’s bona fide United States
Constitutional Right to a jury trial guaranteed by the 7th United States Amendment” (Id.
at 3); and (3) he was unable to file opposition papers between February 3 and March 28,
2022 to Defendant Jonas Walker’s Motion for Screening (Id.).
ANALYSIS
A. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 permits the Court “[o]n motion and just terms”
to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. The Court may do so “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.
Id. Plaintiff invokes subsections (b)(1), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as the bases to vacate the Order
and Judgment. The Court reviews all three subsections.
Under Rule 60(b)(1), “the determination of whether neglect is excusable is an
equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the
opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3)
Case 2:22-cv-00002-MJP Document 25 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 5

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 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
the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.
v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
Under Rule 60(b)(4), “[a] judgment is not void . . . simply because it is or may
have been erroneous.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270
(2010) (citations omitted). “Instead, Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where
a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of
due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271
(citations omitted).
And “[j]udgments are not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6).” Latshaw v. Trainer
Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006). This rule is employed to “prevent
manifest injustice” but only in “extraordinary circumstances” that “prevented a party
from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. (quotation
omitted). “[A] party who moves for such relief must demonstrate both injury and
circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action
in a proper fashion.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).
B. 	No Basis to Set Aside Order and Judgment
None of Plaintiff’s arguments convinces the Court that the Order or judgment
should be set aside.
First, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s Order and Judgment are void because they
lack the seal of the Court, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1691’s requirement that “[a]ll writs
and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court
Case 2:22-cv-00002-MJP Document 25 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 5

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and signed by the clerk thereof.” The Court finds no merit to this argument. The Court’s
signed Order was issued under the seal of the Court as indicated on the front page of the
Order. The Order was posted to the docket using the Court’s Electronic Case Filing
system. The Judgment was signed by the Clerk of Court under the seal of the Court as
indicated in the header. And the Judgment was posted to the docket using the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing system. There are no irregularities in the Order or Judgment that
might violate 28 U.S.C. § 1691. This argument fails to convince the Court that either the
Order or Judgment should be set aside under Rule 60.
Second, Plaintiff argues that Order and Judgment violate his right to a trial by jury
because the Court dismissed his lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. But Plaintiff offers no rationale or legal support for this assertion. And
the Court is unaware of any precedent that might support Plaintiff’s argument that the
PLRA violates the Seventh Amendment. Plaintiff’s argument does not convince the
Court that the Order or Judgment should be set aside under Rule 60.
Third, Plaintiff argues that he was deprived an opportunity to file an opposition to
Defendant Walker’s Motion for Screening due to his transfer out of Alaska. He claims he
lacked the ability to file an opposition from February 3 to March 28, 2022. The Court
accepts Plaintiff’s assertion that during this time period he was transferred out of Alaska
and that he spent some time in solitary confinement. But against this backdrop, the Court
notes that Plaintiff has not stated that he failed to receive a copy of Defendant Walker’s
Motion. Nor does Plaintiff explain why he did not file an opposition between January 18
(the date the Motion was filed and mailed to Plaintiff (see Dkt. No. 5 at 17)) and
Case 2:22-cv-00002-MJP Document 25 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 5

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
February 3, 2022. Yet Plaintiff was able to file several notices with the Court during the
time he claims he could not file an opposition. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 16.) And in his present
Motion, Plaintiff provides no indication of what arguments he would have raised in
opposition. Even if Plaintiff had filed an opposition, the Court remains convinced that it
would have still ordered this case dismissed. That is because the Court engaged in an
independent review and analysis of Plaintiff’s Complaint that led it to conclude the
claims it contains are frivolous and/or barred by immunities. Having considered the full
record, the Court does not find that Plaintiff was fully prevented from filing an opposition
or that his inability to file an opposition would have altered the Court’s decision.
Plaintiff’s argument does not convince the Court that the Order or Judgment should be set
aside under Rule 60.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion and finds that it fails to set out any
basis to set aside the Order of Dismissal and Judgment in this case. The Court DENIES
the Motion.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel.
Dated June 2, 2022.
AMarsha J. Pechman1
United States Senior District Judge
1 Sitting by designation. (See Dkt. No. 11.)
Case 2:22-cv-00002-MJP Document 25 Filed 06/03/22 Page 5 of 5