Sinclair v. City of Sacramento, No. 3:2007cv05668 - Document 8 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/4/2009. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2009)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sinclair v. City of Sacramento Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT A. SINCLAIR, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-07-5668 EMC CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT Defendant. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 Plaintiff Robert A. Sinclair, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit in November 2007 but 16 approximately a month later voluntarily dismissed his case. See Docket Nos. 6-7 (notices of 17 dismissal, filed on 12/12/2007 and 12/14/2007). The dismissal was without prejudice. See Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 41(a)(1) (providing that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . 19 a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 20 judgment”; adding that, “[u]nless the notice . . . states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice,” 21 provided that the plaintiff did not “previously dismiss[] any federal- or state-court action based on or 22 including the same claim,” in which case the “notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the 23 merits”). 24 On September 1, 2009, almost two years after the dismissal, the Court received two e-mail 25 communications from Mr. Sinclair, in which he appears to be seeking relief from this Court in spite 26 of his earlier dismissal. The Court construes these e-mail communications, which this Court orders 27 be filed, from Mr. Sinclair as a motion to reopen the case, or a motion for relief from final judgment, 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Hunter v. Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Dockets.Justia.com 1 Cir. 1995) (noting that “[c]ourts have held [that a voluntary dismissal] is a judgment, order, or 2 proceeding from which Rule 60(b) relief can be granted”); Walker v. Department of Veterans 3 Affairs, No. 94 Civ. 5591 (MBM), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15691, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 1995) 4 (stating that, “although a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) does not 5 have the preclusive effect on later claims, such a dismissal is a final judgment in the sense that it 6 ends the pending action [and] [a]ccordingly, plaintiff may proceed under Rule 60(b)”); see also 8-41 7 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 41.33[6][i] (stating that “[t]he court retains jurisdiction to consider a 8 motion by the plaintiff to vacate a notice of dismissal under Rule 60(b).”). 9 First, Rule 60(b) allows for relief from a final judgment only under certain circumstances -- 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 The Court hereby DENIES Mr. Sinclair’s Rule 60(b) motion for the following reasons. e.g., where there has been a mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; where there is 12 newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; 13 and where there is fraud by the opposing party. Mr. Sinclair’s e-mails do not establish that any of 14 the grounds listed in Rule 60(b) have been met. Moreover, to the extent Mr. Sinclair could argue 15 that there is a basis for relief pursuant to one of the grounds listed in Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), the 16 motion for relief is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (providing that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) 17 must be made within a reasonable time -- and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after 18 the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding”). 19 Second, it appears that Mr. Sinclair is seeking to reopen the case in order to have a state 20 court conviction removed from his record. There is no federal process, however, by which a state 21 court conviction may be expunged. Compare, e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 1203.4 (providing, under state 22 law, a process for expungement). Thus, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. To the extent Mr. 23 Sinclair is trying to assert a claim for habeas relief,1 it does not appear that he would be entitled to 24 such relief. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” under the 25 conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed, and here there is no indication 26 that Mr. Sinclair was in custody at the time he initiated this lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 27 1 28 Mr. Sinclair’s original complaint indicated that he was pursuing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code § 52.1. 2 1 Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968); see also Woodson v. AG, No. C 97-353 EFL (PR), 2 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1298, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 1997) (stating that “[a]n absence of custody at 3 the time of filing a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be cured by even the most 4 grievous collateral consequences stemming from the conviction under attack since the court is 5 without subject matter jurisdiction”). Even if Mr. Sinclair was in custody, he has not established 6 that he has exhausted his state judicial remedies, which he is required to do before he can challenge 7 his conviction collaterally in a federal habeas proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. 8 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v. 9 Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). As a final point, the Court notes that, even if a federal court could provide Mr. Sinclair with 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the relief he seeks, this Court does not appear to be the proper federal court. The only defendant in 12 this case is the City of Sacramento, which is not within the Northern District of California but rather 13 the Eastern District of California. 14 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Sinclair’s motion is denied. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: September 4, 2009 19 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT A. SINCLAIR, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-07-5668 EMC CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant. ___________________________________/ 13 14 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 15 16 17 That on September 4, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 Robert Angelo Sinclair 249 San Luis Avenue, Apt #3 San Bruno, CA 94066 21 Dated: September 4, 2009 22 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Leni Doyle, Deputy Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
