1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 vs. CONSTRUING DOCUMENT AS A 14 HOWARD AUSBURY, et al. MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. RECONSIDERATION

16 [Doc. No. 111] 17 DENYING MOTION FOR 18 RECONSIDERATION 19

20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff William Dawes (“Dawes”) is a California inmate who has filed a pro se 23 civil rights action pursuant to

in this Court. On April 19, 2021, the 24 Court stayed this case until Dawes’s related criminal case in state court was resolved. 25 See Doc. No. 46; see also S.D. Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. In August of 2024, Dawes’s 26 state criminal charges were dismissed because of his ongoing incompetency, and 27 Defendants then asked this Court to lift the stay and hold a hearing to appoint a guardian 28 ad litem for Dawes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), which requires the 1 Court to “appoint a guardian ad litem ⸺ or issue another appropriate order ⸺ to protect 2 a[n] incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); see 3 Doc. No. 100-1 at 13; Doc. No. 100-2 at 2. In an August 14, 2024 order, this Court lifted 4 the stay and determined that to meet its obligation under Rule 17(c)(2), it would 5 reconsider Dawes’s motions to appoint counsel and referred the matter to the Court’s Pro 6 Bono Panel.

7 Dawes filed an objection to the appointment of counsel, which the Court overruled; 8 pro bono counsel was appointed on September 24, 2024. See Doc. Nos. 105, 106. 9 Dawes then filed a motion entitled “Motion to [Q]uash Pro Bono Attorneys, in which 10 Dawes explained he would not cooperate with pro bono counsel. Doc. No. 107. In an 11 October 22, 2024 order, the Court relieved pro bono counsel and advised Dawes that he 12 could not proceed with this matter unless he named an attorney who could represent him 13 or named an individual, who was represented by an attorney, who would act as a 14 guardian ad litem, by December 3, 2024. See Doc. No. 108 at 6. Dawes was advised that 15 if he did not do so, the Court would administratively close this case.

In the 16 alternative, Dawes was advised he could choose to voluntarily dismiss his case.

An 17 extension of time was granted on December 5, 2023, and Dawes was given until January 18 1, 2025 to respond to the Court’s October 22, 2024 order. See Doc. No. 110. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Dawes has filed a document entitled “Notice of Change of Address [and] Motion 21 to Appeal Right to State a Claim.” Doc. No. 111. In it, Dawes claims he was transferred 22 to the San Diego County Jail without authorization from the Supreme Court and denied 23 his right to a speedy trial in case no. SCS287189.

. He also complains he is being 24 denied good time credits for Orange County Superior Court case no. 05CG3042 while in 25 the San Diego County Jail, has been denied the right to parole, and has been sentenced to 26 life without the possibility of parole without a trial by jury.

He claims his conviction 27 in case no. 05CG3042 is illegal because “the Superior Court of California for County of 28 Orange failed to disclose . . . that J[ohn] Paul Flores, a Mexican, is a superior race to 1 German Nazis and ha[s] the right to rob Natural Born Citizens of the United States . . . .” 2

. He also claims that the “Superior Court judge failed to disclose that Ruben 3 Mondojuando and his father had a legal right to rape and molest my sister Lauren Dawes 4 being Mexican superior to German descendants who[se] relative is a public defender.” 5

He asks this Court to transfer him to Germany “where [he] could work and have the 6 liberty to be drug free and own property.”

. 7 The Court has no power to transfer Dawes from the state correctional institution in 8 which he is incarcerated to Germany. Although it is difficult to discern what further 9 relief Dawes seeks in his motion because much of what he writes is delusional, the Court 10 will construe the motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 22, 2024 11 order. 12 “A motion for reconsideration may be brought under either Fed.R.Civ.P (“FRCP”) 13 59(e) or 60(b).” In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co.,

(9th Cir. 14 1994) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,

, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)). “A 15 district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered 16 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 17 law.” Wood v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 18

(9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. 19 Arnold,

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rule 20 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable 21 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, 22 released, or discharged judgment, a judgment which is “based on an earlier judgment 23 which has been reversed or vacated,” or a judgment which is no longer equitable; or (6) 24 “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 25 No judgment has yet been entered in this case. Further, the Court has not 26 “committed clear error,” nor is there is “an intervening change in the controlling law.” 27 Wood,

. Moreover, the Court finds there has been no mistake, 28 inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void 1 ||judgment, a satisfied, released, or discharged judgment, a judgment which is “based on 2 || an earlier judgment which has been reversed or vacated,” or a judgment which is no 3 || longer equitable, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 4 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONSTRUES Dawes’s “Motion to Appeal 6 || Right to State a Claim” [Doc. No. 111] as a motion for reconsideration, and DENIES the 7 ||{motion. The Court reminds Dawes that he may not proceed in this matter until he is 8 || either represented by an attorney or by a guardian ad litem who is represented by an 9 || attorney, and that he must, no later than January 21, 2025, respond to the Court by 10 || either: 11 1. Naming an attorney who will represent him in this matter; or 12 2. Naming an individual, who is represented by an attorney, who will act as his 13 || guardian ad litem in this matter.! 14 In the alternative, Plaintiff Dawes may choose to voluntarily dismiss his case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: December 12, 2024 17 HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 || —————________ 24 Dawes is advised that if he names an attorney who will represent him in this matter, he must comply 95 || with Local Rule 83.3(f)(2). Local Rule 83.3(f)(2) states: “When an attorney of record for any person ceases to act for a party, such party must appear in person or appoint another attorney by a written 26 || substitution of attorney signed by the party, the attorney ceasing to act, and the newly appointed attorney, or by a written designation filed in the case and served upon the attorney ceasing to act, unless 27 attorney is deceased, in which event the designation of a new attorney will so state. Until such 28 substitution is approved by the Court, the authority of the attorney of record will continue for all proper purposes.”