The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
MITCHELL WINE,
7 Case No. 25-cv-03336-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
9 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
10 BOARD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 61
11 Defendants.
12
13
14 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff brought a motion “request[ing] rulings ‘forthwith’ and
15 immediately on all pending matters, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771.” Dkt. no. 58 (“Motion to
16 Expedite”) at p. 2. Previously, Plaintiff had asked the Court to decide the pending motions in the
17 case without a hearing, asserting that the issues raised in the substantive motions were fully
18 briefed and that a hearing was not required. See dkt. no. 47. On October 7, 2025, the Court ruled
19 on all of the substantive motions pending in the case and vacated the scheduled motion hearing.
20 Dkt. no. 59. Because the only relief requested in the Motion to Expedite was an immediate ruling
21 on the substantive motions, the Court denied that motion as moot. Id. Having dismissed all of
22 Plaintiff’s claims, the Court entered judgment in the case.
23 Plaintiff now asks the Court to vacate the judgment and reopen the case, apparently
24 seeking substantive rulings related to his rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”),
25 18 U.S.C. § 3771. See dkt. no. 61 (“Motion”). Plaintiff has pointed to no authority, however,
26 suggesting that the rights afforded to crime victims under the CVRA apply to the proceedings in
this case, which is not a criminal prosecution. See In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244, 1269 (11th Cir.
27
1 her rights outside of the context of a preexisting criminal proceeding.”); see also In re Doe, 50
2 || F.4th 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing In re Wild with approval).
3 Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 || Dated: October 8, 2025
7
J PH C. SPERO
8 nited States Magistrate Judge
9
10
11
12
41
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28