Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White denied Kinnard’s request to vacate an earlier order, denied intervention, and denied as moot a request to pause his appeal.
Kenneth Kinnard’s effort to revive the dismissed case was unsuccessful; LaVaughan Moore could not intervene at this stage; and Kinnard’s request to pause his appeal was denied as moot.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, the court had previously dismissed Kinnard’s case without allowing another amended complaint, finding that his second amended complaint did not state a claim for relief. Kinnard later asked the court to reconsider and reopen the case, but those requests had already been denied.
Kinnard then sought to vacate that denial based on alleged new evidence. The court denied the request. LaVaughan Moore, whom Kinnard had named as a defendant, also asked to intervene on Kinnard’s side; the court denied that motion because Moore was already a defendant and intervention could not revive the dismissed case. The court denied as moot Kinnard’s request to pause his appeal because it had resolved the other motions.
Judge Jeffrey S. White entered the June 20, 2023 order denying the motion to vacate, denying Moore’s motion to intervene, and denying as moot the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- June 20, 2023
Background
The court had dismissed Kinnard’s case on September 9, 2022, without leave to amend, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), finding that his second amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Kinnard filed motions seeking reconsideration and to reopen the case. The court denied both motions on May 10, 2023. Kinnard also filed notices of appeal, and the Ninth Circuit held the appellate proceedings in abeyance while the district court considered the pending motions.
LaVaughan Moore, whom Kinnard had identified as a defendant, later filed a document styled as an answer and crossclaim and moved to intervene. Kinnard moved to hold his appeal in abeyance until the district court ruled on the pending motions.
Motion to Vacate
Kinnard sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which permits relief from an order based on newly discovered evidence. The court concluded that Kinnard had not shown that he was entitled to relief under that rule. The court also stated that it had previously considered and rejected his arguments for relief and would not consider those arguments again. It therefore denied Kinnard’s request to vacate the May 10, 2023 order.
Motion to Intervene
The court denied Moore’s motion to intervene. It explained that Moore was already named as a defendant and would have an opportunity to participate if the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the dismissal for further proceedings. The court also denied the request to the extent Moore sought to intervene to support Kinnard’s allegations, reasoning that intervention could not be used to revive the dismissed lawsuit.
Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance
Because the court had resolved the motion to vacate and the motion to intervene, it denied as moot Kinnard’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance.
Disposition and Classification
The order denied the motion to vacate, denied Moore’s motion to intervene, and denied as moot the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance. This is a procedural order because it addressed post-judgment relief, intervention, and an appeal-related request rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.