Turner v. Alberto

Background

Randell Turner, who represented himself, sued several individuals and the City of Union City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations. Turner initially filed the case in state court. The defendants removed it to federal court after Turner filed and served his Second Amended Complaint.

Turner moved to return the case to the California Superior Court of Alameda. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court denied remand and granted the motion to dismiss, allowing Turner to amend his complaint. Turner instead filed a declaration stating that he would stand on his original complaint and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal and later dismissed a second appeal.

Motion to Vacate

Turner moved to vacate the earlier dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (b)(4). Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or opposing-party misconduct. The court explained that the moving party must prove such misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and show that it prevented a full and fair presentation of the case.

Turner alleged that the defendants’ counsel gave the court false documents to show that removal was proper. The court found that the record did not support the allegation and that Turner offered only conclusory claims without facts or evidence.

Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief when a judgment or order is void. The court explained that this provision applies only in the rare situation involving certain jurisdictional errors or a due-process violation that deprived a party of notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court found neither circumstance here. It also declined to reconsider its earlier decision denying remand. The court stated that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and personal jurisdiction over Turner because he was domiciled in California and was a resident of Alameda County. The docket showed that Turner had received notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Requested Stay

Turner also referred to Rule 62(b)(4) and asked to stay execution of the judgment. The court found the request unclear and noted that Turner appeared to rely on an outdated version of the rule. Under the current rule, a party may stay a judgment by providing a bond or other security. The court found no basis for a stay because no judgment had yet been entered and Turner had provided no bond or security.

Disposition

The court denied Turner’s motion to vacate. Because Turner had declared that he would stand on his complaint, the court stated that the complaint had already been dismissed, that judgment would be entered, and that the case would be closed. The court denied Turner’s later applications to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. Judge James Donato signed the order.