Piceno v. Donohue
- Robert Illman
- 1:26-cv-01353
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sophia Charity Piceno v. Ronald Donohue, Judge Illman denied Piceno’s Rule 60 request to revisit the dismissal while her appeal was pending.
Sophia Charity Piceno’s request to obtain relief from the prior dismissal order or judgment was denied; the ruling concerned her motion while her appeal was pending.
What happened
Sophia Charity Piceno asked the court to reopen or correct its dismissal order. She argued that the court relied on an incorrect arrest date, misapplied the filing deadline, and failed to apply the mailbox rule and a three-year limitations period.
The court explained that it had used February 2, 2023—not March 3, 2023—in its analysis. It also found that the mailbox rule had been applied and that the limitations period for these claims was based on California’s period for personal-injury actions, not the period for property-loss or seizure claims.
Judge Robert M. Illman treated the filing as a request for the court to consider relief under Rule 60 despite Piceno’s pending appeal, but denied the request for relief from the order or judgment.
The detailed version
- Piceno v. Donohue · No. 1:26-cv-01353
- Robert Illman
- Sept. 9, 2026
Background
Sophia Charity Piceno filed a motion seeking relief from the court’s dismissal order or judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and (6). The motion was docketed as a notice of appeal, which the court said appeared to be an error. Piceno had also filed a separate notice of appeal.
Piceno argued that the dismissal was factually and legally wrong because defendants allegedly gave an incorrect arrest date. She asserted that her arrest occurred on February 2, 2023, rather than March 3, 2023, and that the date affected the statute-of-limitations analysis. She also argued that the court should have applied the mailbox rule and a three-year California limitations period for claims involving deprivation or loss of property and unlawful seizure.
Court’s analysis
Because the notice of appeal had been filed, the district court explained that its authority to act on the Rule 60 motion was limited. Under Rule 62.1, when an appeal is pending, the district court may defer consideration, deny the motion, or state that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue if the court of appeals remands the matter. The court noted that Piceno had not expressly followed the procedure for asking the district court to consider the Rule 60 motion. Because she was representing herself, however, the court treated the motion as making that request.
The court rejected Piceno’s arguments. It stated that it had never relied on or mentioned a March 3, 2023 arrest date and had used February 2, 2023 in its analysis, so there was no clerical mistake to correct. It also stated that it had applied the mailbox rule. The court further explained that the limitations period for the claims was based on California’s statute of limitations for personal-injury actions. The limitations period for property deprivation, property loss, and unlawful seizure claims was therefore not controlling.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered that Piceno’s request for relief from the order or judgment under Rule 60 be DENIED. The opinion does not state that the pending appeal was dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.