Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 12, 2024

Washington v. United States of America

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:23-cv-00447
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Washington v. United States, Judge Tigar denied Washington’s reconsideration motion because his response did not satisfy Rule 60(b).

Who this affects

Jason Levette Washington, whose motion for reconsideration was denied.

What happened

In Washington v. United States of America, Jason Levette Washington responded late to an order concerning his failure to serve the defendants. He said obstructions at his residence made it difficult to retrieve mail.

The court treated Washington’s response as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows reconsideration in listed circumstances, such as excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Washington’s response did not fit any of those circumstances.

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Washington’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state any other disposition.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Washington v. United States of America · No. 4:23-cv-00447
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Apr. 12, 2024

Background

On January 29, 2024, the court issued an order to show cause concerning Jason Levette Washington’s failure to serve the defendants within the time required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Washington did not attend the hearing and did not file a written response at that time.

Washington later filed an untimely response on March 15, 2024. He explained that obstructions to his residence impaired his ability to retrieve mail.

Legal standard

The court construed Washington’s response as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b), which permits reconsideration in specified circumstances. The court identified mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud or misconduct; a void judgment; a satisfied or discharged judgment; and another reason justifying relief. Relief under the last category requires extraordinary circumstances.

Ruling

The court held that Washington’s response did not bring him within any provision of Rule 60(b). Judge Jon S. Tigar therefore denied Washington’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state any other disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.