2008-02-26_Dan_Cole_v._County_of_Hawaii_-_Order_denying_plaintiff's_motion_to_vacate

Home

Case 1:05-cv-00325-JMS-BMK Document 43 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 3 of 6 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) "extraordinary circumstances" which would justify relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).2 In his Motion to Vacate Plaintiff does not allege any of the grounds for Rule 60(b) relief.3 B. Plaintiff's Motion Is Untimely A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a "reasonable time -- and 2 Rule 60, as cited, became effective December 1, 2007 and"shall govern in all proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending." See April 30, 2007 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States Amending Rules; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 86 (stating that the "rules and amendments take effect at the time specified by the Supreme Court, subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2074" and govern pending proceedings unless "the Supreme Court specifies otherwise," or"the court determines that applying them in a particular action would be infeasible and work and injustice"). "The language of Rule 60 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only." Rule 60 Advisory Committee Notes, 2007 Amendments. Because the amended version of Rule 60 governs, and no substantive change in the law was intended, the court interprets the new rule by applying precedent related to prior version of Rule 60. See United States v. Wilson, 429 F.3d 455, 458 n.2(3d Cir. 2005) (noting that amendment moving Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 into Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d) did not substantively change the rule such that "precedent referring to Rule 32 continues to be authoritative"). 3 On February 13, 2008, Cole filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment ("Response"). In his Response, Plaintiff alleges for the first time that he is required, under penalty of law, to report a"pattern of racketeering activity by an enterprise formed and controlled by Japanese/Asian, racial, ethnic, and cultural bonds and obligations that corruptly controls, or influences County, State, and Federal offices and officials in Hawaii." Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts that, if allowed discovery, the existence of this alleged"RICO enterprise" will be "exposed." Id. at 5. This new argument is not properly raised in a motion under Rule 60(b), and therefore, will not be considered by the court. 3