United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Cross-Claim Against Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 87); (2) Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 89); (3) Plaintiff's Motion for
Additional Discovery (Dkt. 106), which the Court interprets
as Motion to Continue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d) (“Motion to Continue”); and (4)
Plaintiff's “Motion under FRCP 60: Fraud on the
Court regarding Pierce County Superior Court Proceeding of
Invalidation, ” (“Motion for Fraud, ” Dkt.
Stay of Case
April 18, 2017, the Court directed the parties to show cause
why Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 89);
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Claim
Against Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
87); and Plaintiff's Motion to Continue (Dkt. 106) should
not be stayed, pending the outcome of Plaintiff's appeal
in a similar case, McGary v. Cunningham, Case No.
3:13-cv-5130-RBL-JRC. Dkt. 125. Both parties indicate they
have no opposition to a stay. Dkts. 126, 127.
district court has broad discretion to decide whether a stay
is appropriate to “promote economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th
Cir. 1972) (quotations and citations omitted). Clinton v.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (“The District
Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident
to its power to control its own docket.”). “A
trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its
own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a
stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.,
708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983); Leyva v. Certified
Grocers of California Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th
Cir.1979); Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Fred
Schakel Dairy, 634 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1094 (E.D. Cal.
several of the issues raised in the parties Motions for
Summary Judgment are the same issues before the Ninth Circuit
in McGary v. Cunningham. In this case, Plaintiff
alleges the mental health and sex offender treatment he
received at the SCC is unconstitutional, falling below the
minimum standards. See Dkt. 31. Specifically,
Plaintiff maintains he was subjected to: (1) inadequate sex
offender treatment, (2) inadequate psychiatric and medical
treatment; (3) harassment and mistreatment by Special
Commitment Center (“SCC”) staff; (4) denial of
equal protection; (5) general lack of care related to his
conditions of confinement; and (6) violations of several
other federal laws and constitutional amendments. Dkt. 31. In
McGary v. Cunningham, Plaintiff also raised claims
related to the SCC's treatment program for mentally ill
residents and whether Plaintiff was provided with adequate
treatment under the sex offender treatment program. See
McGary v. Cunningham, Case No. 3:13-cv-05130-RBL-JRC,
Dkts. 42, 153, 156. Because the Ninth Circuit's ruling in
McGary v. Cunningham could impact the Court's
disposition of the pending proceedings, waiting until the
issues on appeal are decided will avoid potential unnecessary
litigation and provide direction to this Court. See
Jenkins, 2009 WL 3415902 at 1. Thus, the Court finds a
stay of the entire matter, including discovery, pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision on appeal would serve the
interests of fairness and “promote economy of time and
effort” for the Court and the parties.
Kelleher, 467 F.2d at 244.
the Court orders this entire matter be stayed, pending
resolution of Plaintiff's appeal, currently before the
Ninth Circuit. The noting dates on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 89); Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 87); and Plaintiff's Motion to
Continue (Dkt. 106) are stricken. Within thirty days of the
Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in McGary v.
Cunningham, et al., the parties shall file a joint
status report, informing the Court of the status of this
Motion for Fraud (Dkt. 116)
moves for the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 due to “fraud on the
court.” Dkt. 116. Plaintiff alleges Defendants'
counsel has misrepresented his civil commitment proceedings.
Id. Plaintiff appears to argue his civil commitment
proceedings have been invalidated. Id.
contend their characterization of Plaintiff's civil
commitment proceedings have been truthful and consistent with
the findings made in this Court. Dkt. 123; See also
Dkt. 73 (Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment). Defendants note Plaintiff was
released from civil commitment, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code
71.09, finding he no longer met the commitment criteria, not
because his prior civil commitment had been invalidated. Dkt
Plaintiff's pro se motion liberally, it appears
Plaintiff brings the present motion under Rule 60(b)(4) and
Rule 60(d)(3). Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a party may move for
relief from a judgment or order upon a showing of: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse party's fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment;
(5) a satisfied, released or discharged judgment; or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party can
obtain relief under Rule 60(b) only upon an adequate showing
of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. See
Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th Cir. 1995).
Rule 60(d)(3), a court has the authority to “set aside
a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(d)(3). “Because fraud on the court concerns the
integrity of the judicial process itself, a judgment may be
set aside for fraud on the court at any time.”
See 12-60 Moore's Fed. Prac.-Civ. §
60.21[g]. The term “fraud on the court” will
be read narrowly. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003). “
‘Fraud upon the court' ... embrace[s] only that
species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court
itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so
that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are
presented for adjudication.” Id. The burden is
on the moving party to establish fraud by clear and
convincing evidence. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 246 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1957). Rule
60(d)(3) only preserves the Court's power to “set
aside a judgment for fraud on the court” - which must
be shown by clear and convincing evidence and typically does
not arise from “[m]ere nondisclosure of evidence,
” “perjury by a party or witness, ” or
other mere fraud “connected with the presentation of a
case to a court.” United States v. Estate of
Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011).
has failed to establish Defendants or Defendants' counsel
engaged in any conduct which Rule 60 is intended to remedy
and has not shown any exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances are at issue in this case. Plaintiff fails to
show clear and convincing evidence of fraud such “that
the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its
impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for
adjudication.” Appling, 340 F.3d at 780. ...