Ascarie v. The County of Santa Clara
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:16-cv-05031
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ascarie v. The County of Santa Clara, Judge Demarchi denied Ascarie’s motion to reopen the dismissed case.
Mahmoud Ascarie’s request to reopen his dismissed civil-rights action was denied; the County of Santa Clara and the other named defendants opposed the motion.
What happened
In Ascarie v. The County of Santa Clara, Mahmoud Ascarie asked the court to undo the parties’ agreed dismissal of his case. He had originally claimed that defendants violated his constitutional rights while processing permits for property in Gilroy, California.
Ascarie argued that he had made a mistake by trusting the defendants and also sought to add allegations about new permits and possible building demolition. The court held that regretting the dismissal was not enough to justify reopening the case. It also said the new matters were not properly brought through the dismissed action and might involve state or local law and an existing state-court proceeding.
Judge Demarchi denied Ascarie’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court said he could start a new case in an appropriate court with jurisdiction over his claims.
The detailed version
- Ascarie v. The County of Santa Clara · No. 5:16-cv-05031
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 7, 2019
Background
Mahmoud Ascarie, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the County of Santa Clara, Jim Lanz, MaryEllen Luna, Daren Wardell, Michael Harrison, and Joseph Takacs violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, equal protection, and due process by discriminating against him based on race while he sought permits to use certain property in Gilroy, California.
The parties later agreed to resolve the dispute and filed a stipulated dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on September 21, 2018. Nearly a year later, Ascarie moved under Rule 60(b) to set aside that dismissal and reopen the case.
The court’s analysis
Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances. The court treated Ascarie’s motion as one under Rule 60(b)(1), which addresses mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Ascarie identified his decision to “trust[] defendants” as the mistake. His motion also described efforts to obtain new permits and resolve past violations, along with what he viewed as uncooperative and retaliatory conduct by the County and its employees. The court concluded that his regret about dismissing the case was not a sufficient mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
Ascarie alternatively sought to amend the dismissed case to add allegations concerning new permits and the possible demolition of buildings on the property. The defendants disputed several allegations, argued that Ascarie lacked standing because he was not the property’s legal owner or the owner’s agent, and stated that the County had filed an ongoing California state-court action involving state law, code, and zoning violations. The court did not resolve those issues. Instead, it concluded that Ascarie had identified no proper basis to reopen the action and that the dismissed action was not the proper vehicle for seeking relief concerning those matters.
Disposition
The court denied Ascarie’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and denied his request to reopen the action, whether to pursue the original claims or amend them. The court stated that he could initiate a new action in an appropriate forum with jurisdiction over his claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.