Moreno v. Brettkelly
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02082
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Moreno v. Brettkelly, Judge Orrick upheld an earlier denial of Moreno’s request for relief from a judgment dismissing his claims.
Jose Rigoberto Moreno, whose request to obtain relief from the earlier judgment was not granted, and the defendants whose dismissal from the case remained in place.
What happened
In Moreno v. Brettkelly, Jose Rigoberto Moreno, who was representing himself, asked the court to reinstate excessive-force claims against San Francisco public officials that had been dismissed with prejudice. The court had entered final judgment in January 2021.
Moreno sought relief more than three years later under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, citing mistake, newly discovered evidence, and other reasons justifying relief. The court explained that some of those requests had a one-year deadline and that the other request had to be made within a reasonable time. It found that Moreno had not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying the delay.
Judge William H. Orrick resolved Moreno’s clarification request by restating the reasons for the earlier denial and leaving that order in place. The court recognized Moreno’s health problems and medical treatment but concluded they did not justify the three-year delay.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. Brettkelly · No. 3:20-cv-02082
- William Orrick
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
Jose Rigoberto Moreno, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to reinstate excessive-force claims against numerous San Francisco public officials. The court had dismissed those claims with prejudice and entered final judgment on January 7, 2021. In July 2024, Moreno moved for relief from that judgment. The court denied that motion because he had not justified waiting more than three years to seek relief. Moreno then asked the court to clarify that denial, arguing that it lacked detailed reasoning.
Rule 60 analysis
The court explained that requests based on mistake under Rule 60(b)(1) or newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) must be made no more than one year after entry of the judgment or order. Moreno’s request came more than three years after final judgment, so the court held that those grounds could not support relief.
The court also addressed Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason that justifies it. Such a motion must be made within a reasonable time and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely action. The court found that Moreno had not shown the unique and compelling circumstances required for relief. Although the court recognized his health problems in July 2020 and medical treatment in Europe between 2021 and 2024, it concluded that those circumstances did not justify the three-year delay.
Disposition
Judge William H. Orrick restated the reasons for denying Moreno’s motion for relief from judgment and stated that the prior order stands. The order resolves the clarification request; it does not reopen the previously dismissed claims.
Earlier case history
After reviewing Moreno’s amended complaint in 2020, the court dismissed claims for failure to state a claim but allowed him an opportunity to amend an excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain claims against state or local officials. Moreno did not initially amend. After he submitted another proposed amended complaint, the court dismissed all of his claims with prejudice and entered final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.