Kelly v. Cubesmart
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-05470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, Judge Gilliam denied Kelly’s request to undo the judgment dismissing her case because she failed to pursue it.
Cynthia Renee Kelly, whose request to correct or vacate the judgment was denied; the order concerns her case against Cubesmart, et al.
What happened
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, the court had dismissed Cynthia Renee Kelly’s case for failing to prosecute it. Kelly then asked the court to correct or undo that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Kelly’s motion did not address her repeated failure to attend a case-management conference or otherwise cooperate in pursuing the case. Instead, it argued that the court’s rulings were wrong and that she had been treated unfairly. The motion also included a request concerning alleged judicial bias or prejudice.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion. He found no mistake to correct and determined that Kelly’s arguments did not satisfy any basis for undoing the judgment under Rule 60. The court also noted that disagreement with its rulings did not establish a basis for recusal.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. Cubesmart · No. 4:22-cv-05470
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
The court had previously dismissed Cynthia Renee Kelly’s case for failure to prosecute. The dismissal order identified Kelly’s persistent refusal to appear for a case-management conference and her failure to otherwise cooperate in prosecuting the case. The opinion also states that Kelly did not file an amended complaint correcting deficiencies identified in an earlier order or appear at the scheduled case-management conference to confirm that she wished to proceed with the remaining claims.
Kelly filed a motion referencing several provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b). The court construed the filing as a request to correct or vacate the judgment. The Ninth Circuit was holding Kelly’s appeal in abeyance while the district court considered the motion.
Rule 60 standards
Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or a mistake caused by oversight or omission in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or satisfaction or discharge of the judgment. The court stated that relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Kelly’s motion did not address the reason for the dismissal: her refusal to attend the case-management conference and otherwise cooperate in prosecuting the case. The motion did not assert that an emergency or other inability had prevented Kelly from complying with the court’s procedures and orders, nor did it state that she was ready to comply going forward. Instead, the court understood the motion as repeating Kelly’s arguments that the court’s rulings were substantively wrong and that she had been treated unfairly.
The court concluded that these arguments did not satisfy any ground for relief under Rule 60(b), and that there was no clerical or other mistake requiring correction under Rule 60(a). Kelly’s filing also included a request for relief based on alleged bias or prejudice by the judge. The court noted that it had previously explained that disagreement with its rulings does not establish a basis for recusal.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Kelly’s motion to vacate the judgment. The opinion does not state that the court altered the prior dismissal or separately grant or deny the recusal request beyond denying the Rule 60 motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.