Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board
- Joseph Spero
- 3:25-cv-03336
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mitchell Wine v. Merit Systems, Judge Spero denied Wine’s motion to vacate judgment and reopen the case under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Mitchell Wine and the defendants in the case; the court denied Wine’s request to vacate the judgment and reopen the case.
What happened
In Mitchell Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the court had already ruled on the pending substantive motions, dismissed all of Wine’s claims, and entered judgment. It also denied Wine’s request to expedite those rulings as moot.
Wine then asked the court to vacate the judgment and reopen the case, apparently seeking rulings about rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The opinion states that Wine identified no authority showing that the Act applies to this case, which was not a criminal prosecution.
Judge Spero denied the motion. The judgment therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board · No. 3:25-cv-03336
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
On October 6, 2025, Mitchell Wine filed a motion asking the court to rule immediately on all pending matters under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The court ruled on the pending substantive motions the next day, vacated the scheduled hearing, denied the request to expedite as moot, dismissed all of Wine’s claims, and entered judgment.
Motion to Reopen
Wine then moved to vacate the judgment and reopen the case. The opinion says he apparently sought substantive rulings concerning his rights under the CVRA. The court stated that Wine identified no authority indicating that the CVRA’s rights for crime victims applied to these proceedings, which were not a criminal prosecution. The court cited decisions discussing the CVRA in the context of a preexisting criminal proceeding.
Ruling
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion. The opinion does not state that the judgment was vacated or that the case was reopened; instead, the existing judgment remained in place.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.