Moralez v. Davis
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-07860
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Moralez v. Davis, Judge Freeman denied Rudolph Moralez’s motion for reconsideration because he did not show extraordinary circumstances.
Rudolph Moralez, whose request to reopen the case was denied. The opinion states that the earlier complaint had been dismissed and judgment entered.
What happened
In Moralez v. Davis, Rudolph Moralez, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to reopen his civil-rights case. The court had dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and entered judgment in 2021.
Moralez filed his request nearly three years later under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. He said a learning disability, the COVID-19 outbreak, and lack of competent help had prevented him from preparing an adequate complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion. She found that Moralez had known about his learning disability long before filing the case, had received prison accommodations, and did not explain his lengthy delay or show extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.
The detailed version
- Moralez v. Davis · No. 5:20-cv-07860
- Beth Freeman
- June 20, 2024
Background
Rudolph Moralez filed a civil-rights action while representing himself against San Quentin State Prison Warden Ron Davis and others. The court twice allowed him to amend his complaint, but his second amended complaint still did not correct the identified problems. On September 24, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted and entered judgment.
Motion for Reconsideration
Nearly three years later, Moralez moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(1). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision that permits relief only when extraordinary circumstances justify reopening a case. The court also explained that such a motion must be filed within a reasonable time, although it did not decide the motion solely on timeliness.
Moralez asserted that he had a learning disability affecting written language, that the COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison contributed to his inability to prepare an adequate complaint, and that he had lacked competent assistance until recently. He submitted records indicating that he had been assessed with a learning disability as early as 2007 and had received accommodations in prison. He also submitted a February 3, 2022 letter from an attorney concerning the status of a class action and advising him about filing a timely federal action after exhausting administrative remedies.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that Moralez had not shown that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from proceeding properly. The court noted that he knew about his disability before filing the action in 2020 and that the disability had not prevented him from starting the case. The court also noted that, despite the attorney’s advice, Moralez waited more than two years before filing the reconsideration motion and gave no explanation for that delay. The motion for reconsideration was DENIED, and the order terminated Docket No. 29. The court stated that Moralez may appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.