Van Buren v. Gee

Background

Irvin Van Buren sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that defendants violated his due-process rights and his protection against cruel and unusual punishment by confining and imprisoning him for nearly 30 years. The defendants included current or former employees of the California Department of Corrections and the former California Attorney General, sued in their individual and/or official capacities.

The court previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Van Buren’s Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment on January 5, 2023. Van Buren then filed a motion that the court treated as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 to alter or amend the judgment, or under Rule 60 to set aside the judgment. He also submitted a proposed Third Amended Complaint, which sought claims against new defendants concerning the alleged handling and reclassification of one of his state-court petitions.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of five documents from Van Buren’s state-court proceedings, including a 1993 verdict, a pre-hearing brief, a motion for speedy trial, an abstract of judgment, and jury findings. Because these were undisputed public records, the court granted defendants’ request for judicial notice.

Request for Appointed Counsel

Van Buren asked the court to appoint counsel, stating that he was indigent and that the issues were too complex for him. The court denied the request. It found that Van Buren had demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to present his claims, that the facts and issues were not particularly complex, and that he was not likely to succeed on the merits.

Motion to Alter, Amend, or Set Aside the Judgment

Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances, such as a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.

Van Buren argued that the earlier dismissal order misstated two facts from his complaint. The court rejected that argument because it had merely accepted those allegations as true for purposes of the earlier motion to dismiss, and because the judgment did not rest on those facts. Van Buren also identified a typographical error in the earlier order that referred to his motion to dismiss instead of defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court agreed that the wording was incorrect but found that the typo did not affect the result and was not a basis for relief.

The court also rejected Van Buren’s request to add claims through a new complaint. Van Buren acknowledged that the events underlying those proposed claims occurred before he filed his original Section 1983 complaint. The court found that the proposed claims therefore did not involve newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. It also found no legal error, manifest injustice, exceptional circumstances, or excusable neglect that would justify relief.

Disposition

The court denied Van Buren’s motion to alter or amend the judgment or to set aside the judgment. The current order addressed only that post-judgment motion; it did not reopen the earlier dismissal.