Johnson v. Carey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE INGRID JOHNSON, CASE NO. C25-0564-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO v. REOPEN MONICA CARY, in her official capacity as King County Family Court Judge, Defendant.

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s second motion to reopen her case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. No. 16.

15 The Court previously dismissed the case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because “the sole defendant in this case has absolute immunity from Plaintiff’s claims, and the Younger abstention doctrine applies, [so] the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.” Dkt. No. 12 at 4. The Court then rejected Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) because the motion “fail[ed] to identify any mistake that would warrant setting aside the judgment and reinforce[d] that judicial immunity and the Younger abstention doctrine apply.” Dkt. No. 15 at 2.

22 Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), (3), and (6) because “[n]ew evidence confirms that Plaintiff’s emergency filings were obstructed on four separate occasions.” Dkt. No. 16 at 1. A court may grant a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) only “upon a showing of (1) mistake, 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). Plaintiff’s motion does not include evidence or argument that could undermine the Court’s previous holding that Judge Cary is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See e.g., Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024).

7 Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case is DENIED. Dkt. No. 16. The case shall remain closed.

9 Dated this 6th day of June, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 12 United States District Judge