Lee v. McGuckin
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-03689
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lee v. McGuckin, Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice Lee’s request to vacate the dismissal and judgment, leaving the case closed.
The ruling directly affected Perris J. Lee and the defendants in his closed civil-rights action. It left the dismissal and judgment in place while denying Lee’s request to vacate them without prejudice.
What happened
In Lee v. McGuckin, Perris J. Lee brought a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had dismissed the case without prejudice after Lee failed to respond to discovery requests and a court order, and entered judgment for the defendants.
Lee asked the court to undo the dismissal and judgment, arguing that documents he sent had been timely filed but incorrectly returned. The court said Lee had not provided a copy of those documents, so it could not determine whether they answered the court’s order or showed that he intended to continue the case. The court also found Lee’s contract-related materials irrelevant.
Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice Lee’s request to vacate the dismissal and entry of judgment. The order stated that Lee could file a post-judgment motion under Rule 60(b), but the case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Lee v. McGuckin · No. 4:18-cv-03689
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
Perris J. Lee filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officers at Salinas Valley State Prison physically attacked him on April 12, 2015, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive force. The opinion identifies the officers as Knox, Curry III, Medina, Streeper, Gasca, and McGuckin.
Defendants notified the court that Lee had not responded to their discovery requests since March 19, 2021. Defendants then moved for summary judgment and separately moved to compel Lee to respond to discovery. The court ordered Lee to explain by March 25, 2022, why it should not grant summary judgment or dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Lee did not respond by that deadline.
On March 30, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to the court’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also entered judgment in favor of defendants.
Motion to Vacate
Lee moved to vacate the dismissal and judgment. He appeared to argue that he had timely filed a response with the court, but that the response had been returned. He did not provide a copy of the material he said he had sent. As a result, the court could not determine whether it answered the order to show cause, opposed defendants’ summary-judgment motion, or otherwise showed an intent to prosecute the case.
Lee also submitted a letter from the clerk returning discovery material, a California statute about consent in contracts, an explanation of the mailbox rule for contracts, and a California case. The court found those remaining materials inapplicable because the action was not a contract case and state contract law did not govern the issue before it. The court noted that discovery responses should be served on the opposing party rather than filed with the court.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied without prejudice Lee’s request to vacate the dismissal and entry of judgment. The court said that any post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits requests for relief from a final judgment or order in specified circumstances, must explain how Lee satisfies the requirements for that relief. The order terminated the motion, and the case remained closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.