Pena v. United States Postal Service
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-03923
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pena v. United States Postal Service, Judge Spero denied Pena’s request for relief from judgment and kept the case closed.
Israel Pena’s request to change or undo the judgment was denied, and the case remained closed; the defendants retained the judgment entered in their favor.
What happened
The court had entered judgment against Israel Pena after granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his second amended complaint.
Pena later sent a letter apologizing for missing what he believed was a hearing and repeating allegations from his complaint. The court considered whether the letter could be treated as a request to change or undo the judgment.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the request because it did not show an error in the earlier dismissal, did not meet the requirements for extraordinary relief, and was too late for relief under Rule 59(e). The case remained closed.
The detailed version
- Pena v. United States Postal Service · No. 3:18-cv-03923
- Joseph Spero
- May 1, 2020
Background
The Clerk entered judgment against Israel Pena on March 19, 2020, after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Pena’s second amended complaint. The court’s earlier order concluded that Pena had not pursued his claims within the time limits set by applicable statutes.
The court had previously determined that the motion to dismiss could be resolved without oral argument and vacated a hearing that had been scheduled for May 17, 2019. The court therefore noted that no hearing occurred for Pena to attend.
Pena’s Letter
Pena sent a letter dated April 20, 2020. He apologized for not filing anything and for missing a hearing in May 2019 because of a medical issue. He also said he did not know that the case was still open. The letter did not request specific relief, but it repeated and expanded on allegations from his complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court considered whether to treat the letter as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the letter did not change its conclusion that Pena failed to pursue his claims within the applicable time limits. It also found that Pena had not shown an error in the earlier order or met the demanding standard for extraordinary relief under either rule.
The deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion was April 16, 2020, 28 days after judgment was entered. Even using April 20—the date on the letter—as the filing date, rather than April 27, when the Clerk filed it, the court found the letter untimely under Rule 59(e).
To the extent the letter could be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e), Rule 60, or another authority, the court DENIED it. The court stated that final judgment had been entered and that the case remained closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.