McGee v. Milpitas Police Department
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-02559
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In McGee v. Milpitas Police Department, Judge Demarchi denied McGee’s motion to change the judgment because defendants’ filings were timely.
Anthony McGee; the Milpitas Police Department; and the City of Milpitas.
What happened
In Anthony McGee v. Milpitas Police Department, the court had previously dismissed McGee’s amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment against him. McGee, who represented himself, asked the court to alter or amend that judgment.
McGee argued that defendants filed their motion to dismiss too late, that the Clerk wrongly denied his requests for entry of default, and that defendants failed to answer his complaint. The court rejected each argument, finding that defendants were served on July 7 and July 26, received an extension to respond, timely filed their motion to dismiss on August 18, and were not required to file an answer while that motion was pending.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied McGee’s motion, concluding that he identified no clear legal or factual error and largely repeated arguments the court had already considered.
The detailed version
- McGee v. Milpitas Police Department · No. 5:23-cv-02559
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
On October 23, 2023, the court dismissed Mr. McGee’s amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment against him. Mr. McGee, who was representing himself, filed a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking the court to alter or amend the judgment. The Milpitas Police Department and the City of Milpitas opposed the motion. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Rule 59(e) standard
The court explained that it may alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) based on a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also explained that this type of motion is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be used to relitigate matters already decided or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.
McGee’s arguments
Mr. McGee argued that the judgment rested on legal and factual mistakes because:
- Defendants’ motion to dismiss was not filed within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint;
- The Clerk incorrectly declined to enter defaults against defendants; and
- Defendants failed to answer his complaint.
The court rejected the first argument because defendants were not served when they were allegedly informed of the complaint. The summons were issued on June 27, 2023. The City of Milpitas was served on July 7, and the Milpitas Police Department was served on July 26. The deadlines to respond were therefore July 28 and August 16, respectively. On July 28, defendants sought an extension to August 18, Mr. McGee did not oppose the request, and the court granted it. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 18, making it timely under the court’s order.
The court also rejected Mr. McGee’s default argument. It distinguished issuing a summons from serving a summons. According to the court, only service of the summons and complaint triggered defendants’ obligation to respond. Because defendants were served on July 7 and July 26 and their response deadlines were extended by court order, they were not in default.
Finally, the court rejected Mr. McGee’s argument that defendants had to file an answer instead of a motion to dismiss. Under Rule 12(b), a defendant may file a motion before filing an answer when a responsive pleading is allowed. Filing the motion suspends the deadline for an answer until the court rules on the motion or postpones its decision. Defendants filed their Rule 12(b)(6) motion on August 18, the date their answer was due. Because the court granted that motion and dismissed the case, defendants were not required to file an answer.
Ruling
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Mr. McGee’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court concluded that he identified no manifest error of law or fact and that most of his supporting arguments repeated issues the court had already addressed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.