Wade v. United States
- Charles Breyer
- 3:06-cv-02346
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wade v. United States, Judge Breyer denied E. K. Wade’s motion to reopen a 2007 judgment because it was filed too late.
E. K. Wade’s request to reopen the case was denied, so the 2007 judgment remained in place. The United States was the opposing party.
What happened
Wade v. United States involved claims based on an allegedly negligent decision to give E. K. Wade Prednisone at a Veterans Administration hospital. The court granted the government’s summary-judgment motion in 2007 after Wade did not file an opposition.
More than thirteen years later, Wade asked the court to reopen the case and set aside the judgment. He argued that the court lacked authority to hear the case, denied him a fair process, and that fairness required reopening it. His arguments focused mainly on a filing restriction imposed in this case and a similar restriction from a different case.
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied the motion. He ruled that some possible grounds were barred by Rule 60’s one-year deadline and that the remaining grounds were not raised within a reasonable time. He also ruled that Wade could not challenge an order from a different case by seeking to reopen this one.
The detailed version
- Wade v. United States · No. 3:06-cv-02346
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 19, 2021
Background
In 2005 and 2006, E. K. Wade filed 24 lawsuits in the Northern District of California, including eight concerning problems at Veterans Administration hospitals. Some lawsuits involved claims that a hospital refused to fill his Prednisone prescription. This case instead involved claims based on an allegedly negligent decision to give him Prednisone.
On August 24, 2007, the court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment after Wade failed to file an opposition. More than 13 years later, Wade filed an amended motion asking the court to reopen the case and vacate, or set aside, the judgment.
Arguments
Wade argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, denied him due process, and that the interests of justice required reopening the case. His arguments appeared to focus mainly on a prefiling order entered in this case on December 14, 2006. He also appeared to challenge a similar prefiling order entered by Judge Alsup in a different action.
Rule and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) lists grounds for relief from a final judgment, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, and other reasons justifying relief. Rule 60(c)(1) requires a motion to be made within a reasonable time. Motions based on the first three grounds must be filed no more than one year after the relevant judgment, order, or proceeding.
The court held that any part of Wade’s motion relying on the first three grounds was barred by the one-year deadline. To the extent Wade argued that the judgment or prefiling order was void, or relied on other reasons for relief, the court held that he had not filed within a reasonable time. Wade offered no explanation for waiting more than 13 years.
The court also held that Wade could not use a motion to reopen this case to challenge an order entered in a different case by a different judge. The court noted that neither Rule 60 nor any other cited authority allowed that type of challenge. The court further stated that, even if Wade had filed on time, he had provided no reason to conclude that the judgment was void or that reopening was required in the interests of justice.
Disposition
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Wade’s motion to reopen. The opinion does not state that the underlying 2007 judgment was vacated or reopened.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.