NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLEY FELIZ, on behalf of the Estate of No. 17-55568
Stephen Jeffrey Clevenger and as Guardian
Ad Litem for L.P.F., a minor, D.C. No.
8:10-cv-01664-CJC-AN
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Governmental
Entity and SANDRA HUTCHENS, Orange
County Sheriff, in her individual and official
capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: HURWITZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for
the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
After Stephen Clevenger committed suicide in jail, Lesley Feliz, guardian ad
litem for Clevenger’s daughter, sued Orange County, the County Sheriff, and several
guards (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and a state-
law wrongful death claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the
Defendants on the § 1983 claims, finding that Clevenger’s wife—not his daughter—
was the proper successor in interest under California law, and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful death claim. We reversed the summary
judgment on the § 1983 claims and remanded “for the district court to reconsider
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.” Feliz v. Cty.
of Orange, 552 F. App’x 652, 653 (9th Cir. 2014).
On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to the
Defendants on the § 1983 claims, this time finding “that Plaintiff has not met her
burden of showing deliberate indifference.” The court again declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful death claim. We affirmed. Feliz v. Cty.
of Orange, 672 F. App’x 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2016).
After the mandate issued, Feliz filed a motion to set aside the judgment,
claiming that the Defendants had previously failed to produce a “Special Handling
Log” and that the district court had abused its discretion by declining supplemental
jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, finding that Feliz failed to explain
how any information in the Log would have changed the result as to the § 1983
2
claims and had provided no showing of an abuse of discretion as to the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction. Feliz timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the denial of a
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for abuse of discretion.
Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2007).1 We affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Feliz
demonstrated no basis for Rule 60(b)(6) relief on the § 1983 claim. “A party seeking
to re-open a case under Rule 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both injury and
circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the
prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion.’” Id. at 1044 (quoting Cmty.
Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)). Because Feliz failed to
identify information in the Log that was either previously unavailable or relevant to
the district court’s § 1983 analysis, the refusal to vacate the grant of summary
judgment was not an abuse of discretion. See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,
452 F.3d 1097, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2006).
2. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in again declining
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Feliz did not challenge the
1
Although Feliz’s motion was denominated as seeking relief under Rule
60(b)(4) (relief from a void judgment) and 60(b)(5) (relief from a satisfied
judgment), the district court properly treated the motion as invoking Rule 60(b)(6)
(relief for “any other reason that justifies relief”).
3
district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction in her second appeal
and has not suggested that any extraordinary circumstances prevented her from
doing so. See Delay, 475 F.3d at 1044.
AFFIRMED.
4