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 5 of 6 C. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Extraordinary Circumstances Justifying Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6) Even assuming that the Motion to Vacate was timely filed, Plaintiff's only possibility for relief is under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), which is used "sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice." Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation signals omitted). Rule 60(b)(6) applies only where "extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation signals omitted). Plaintiff has made no such showing. His failure to appeal "may be attributable to inattention or inexperience but neither deficiency constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that justifies Rule 60(b) relief." Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation signals omitted); see also Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Neglect or lack of diligence is not to be remedied through Rule 60(b)(6)." (citation omitted)). Notwithstanding the untimeliness of the Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff's 5