Segui et al v. Stromfors et al

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Shai Segui,
Plaintiff,
v.
Stephanie Stromfors; Diana Vigil; Randy Rand;
Julie Verner; Yvonne Parnell; Donna Moniz;
and Building Family Bridges,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01171-PHX-DGC
ORDER
Plaintiff Shai Segui asserts civil rights violations and related claims in the operative
second amended complaint. Doc. 70. The Court entered an order granting motions to
dismiss filed by Defendants Stephanie Stromfors, Diana Vigil, Julie Verner, and Randy
Rand. Doc. 89. Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from the order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Doc. 94. The motion is fully briefed and oral argument will not
aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv 7.2(f). For reasons stated below,
the Court will deny the motion.
I. Background.1
This case arises from Arizona family court proceedings between Plaintiff’s parents,
David Segui and Donna Moniz.2 They divorced in 2017, when Plaintiff was eleven years
1 The factual background of this case is further described in the Court’s dismissal
order. Doc. 89 at 1-3. The facts are taken from the complaint (Doc. 70) and public records
attached to the complaint and the parties’ briefs (see Doc. 89 at 4 n.4).
2 See Segui v. Moniz, FC2015-004537 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. May 8, 2015).
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 10

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
old. A lengthy custody battle ensued over the next several years. Plaintiff alleges that his
mother was abusive and he requested to live with his father. Doc. 70 ¶¶ 12-16.
Defendant Vigil, a court-appointed therapeutic interventionist, advised the court
that Plaintiff would need therapy to reunify with his alienated mother and recommended
Building Family Bridges (“BFB”), an intensive reunification program owned and operated
by Defendant Rand. Id. ¶¶ 4, 17, 29-30; Docs. 70-2, 72-1.
Defendant Stromfors, the court-appointed best interests attorney, claimed severe
alienation between Plaintiff and his mother and recommended BFB as the preferred
reunification program. The court granted Stromfor’s motion in this regard and ordered
Plaintiff’s mother to enroll with the children in BFB. Doc. 70 ¶¶ 23-24, 27, 33, 38-40, 47;
Docs. 38-3, 70-1, 74-1.
Plaintiff and his brother were transported to California to attend the BFB program
in January 2021. Plaintiff was denied contact with his father and was required to participate
in counseling sessions with his mother and Defendants Vigil, Verner, and Rand. Plaintiff
described the abuse by his mother and requested to be sent home to his father, but was
forced to continue the reunification therapy. Plaintiff was told that if he did not cooperate
he would be sent to a wilderness therapy program. Doc. 70 ¶¶ 57-62, 72, 75-77, 79-80.
When the reunification therapy concluded, Plaintiff was placed in the full custody
of his mother in accordance with BFB’s aftercare program. Plaintiff was threatened with
more time away from his father if he did not improve his relationship with his mother and
speak favorably about BFB. Id. ¶¶ 81, 83-84, 89.
As a result of the reunification therapy, Plaintiff was precluded from having contact
with his father for nearly a year and a half and experienced severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants prolonged the family court proceedings and reunification
therapy for their own financial gain. Id. ¶¶ 42-46, 86-88, 97-98, 100-02, 109, 159, 165-66.
Plaintiff asserts three claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, and
violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of association (counts one through
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 10

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
three). Id. ¶¶ 104-84. Plaintiff also asserts battery claims (count four) and a civil rights
claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the “Bane Act” (count five). Id. ¶¶
185-216.
Defendants Stromfors, Vigil, Verner, and Rand moved to dismiss the claims against
them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docs. 71, 72, 73, 81. The Court granted the motions on
June 27, 2025, finding that: (1) qualified immunity bars the § 1983 claims asserted against
Stromfors and Vigil; (2) the § 1983 claim against Rand fails because Plaintiff has not
shown that Rand acted under color of state law; (3) the § 1983 claims against Verner should
be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s request to remove her from those claims; and (4) the
complaint fails to state a Bane Act claim against Verner and Rand. Doc. 89 at 4-12.3
On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff moved for relief from the Court’s June 27, 2025 order
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Doc. 94. Defendants Stromfors, Vigil, and Rand oppose the
motion. Docs. 95, 97, 99. Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion with respect to Defendant
Verner. Docs. 96, 102.4
II. Rule 60(b)(6) Standard.
The Court has discretion to grant relief from an order or judgment under Rule 60(b)
upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; or (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5); see Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d
664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b)(6) “is a catchall provision that allows the [Court]
to grant relief from a judgment or order for ‘any other reason that justifies relief.’” Navajo
Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, No. CV-03-00507-PCT-GMS, 2014 WL 12796200, at *1
3 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s order on July 18, 2025. Doc. 90.
On July 28, 2025, the Court dismissed the claims against Defendants Parnell, Moniz, and
BFB because Plaintiff had failed show cause why the claims against Parnell and Moniz
should not be dismissed for lack of service and had failed to file a motion for default
judgment against BFB. See Docs. 89 at 13, 92 at 1.
4 The Ninth Circuit has stayed appellate proceedings until the Court rules on the
Rule 60(b)(6) motion. See Doc. 7, Segui v. Stromfors, No. 25-4508 (9th Cir. Sept. 10,
2025).
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 10

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(D. Ariz. Oct. 1, 2014) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)); see also BLOM Bank SAL v.
Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 211 (2025) (“Rule 60(b)(6) provides only grounds for relief not
already covered by the preceding five paragraphs.”) (citation modified). Rule 60(b)(6) is
“used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice[.]” Warfield v.
Froemming, No. CV-22-08056-PCT-GMS, 2024 WL 3595658, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 30,
2024) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th
Cir. 1993)). “Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is the exception, not the rule. ‘Extraordinary
circumstances’ must be present before a party can obtain relief from a judgment [or order]
under this rule.” Grand Canyon W. Ranch, LLC v. Kempthorne, No. CV-03-02496-PCT-
NVW, 2013 WL 12364963, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 1, 2013) (citing Ackermann v. United
States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950); United States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir.
1982)); see also BLOM, 605 U.S. at 212 (discussing the “stringency of the ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ test”). The moving party bears the burden of proving a basis for Rule
60(b)(6) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).
III. Discussion.
Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion reads much like his second amended complaint and
responses to the motions to dismiss. In the introduction and background sections, Plaintiff
reasserts his factual allegations and rehashes arguments previously made. Doc. 94 at 6-14.
But a Rule 60(b)(6) motion “does not give a party the opportunity to re-litigate its case
after the court has rendered a decision,” nor is it a “second opportunity for the losing party
to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed[.]” Evans v. Cnty.
of L.A, No. 2:20-cv-02504-FLA (ASx), 2022 WL 16961472, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2022)
(citations omitted). Plaintiff also asserts new claims in the motion, contending, among
other things, that “therapeutic intervention” constitutes inhuman medical experimentation
and torture in violation of the Nuremberg Code, and that Defendants subjected Plaintiff to
kidnapping, psychological torture, false imprisonment, and other crimes against humanity.
Doc. 94 at 7-11. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion, however, does not allow the Court to “consider
‘new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation’ in the
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 10

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
underlying proceedings.” Evans, 2022 WL 16961472, at *4 (citation omitted); see also
United States v. Gray, No. 1:21-CV-3126-TOR, 2025 WL 581389, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Feb.
21, 2025) (“Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle to reargue the merits of the underlying judgment,
to advance new arguments which could have been presented in the parties’ original motion
papers before judgment, or as a substitute for appeal.”) (citation modified); McIntyre v.
Ariz. Bd. of Regents, No. CV-24-08151-PCT-DGC, 2025 WL 296399, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan.
24, 2025) (“Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.
Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink
its analysis.”) (citations omitted); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (a motion for reconsideration will be
denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority
that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence”).
Plaintiff makes two specific arguments in seeking relief from the Court’s dismissal
order: (1) the grant of qualified immunity was clear legal error, and (2) the Court failed to
accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. Doc. 94 at 14-23. Because neither argument
has merit, the Court will deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion.5
A. Qualified Immunity.
Qualified immunity shields government officials, including private individuals
retained by the government to carry out its work, from § 1983 claims unless the plaintiff
shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right
was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563
U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (citation omitted); see Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377, 389 (2012)
(immunity from § 1983 claims applies to individuals working for the government). An
official’s conduct violates clearly established law when “the contours of a right are
5 The Court has jurisdiction to deny the motion despite Plaintiff’s appeal from the
dismissal order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2); Out of the Box Enters., LLC v. El Paseo
Jewelry Exch., Inc., 737 F. App’x 304, 305 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Although the district court
lacked the authority to grant El Paseo’s Rule 60(b) motion without a remand from our
court, it had jurisdiction to deny the motion on the merits, defer consideration, or issue an
indicative ruling.”) (citations omitted).
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 10

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing
violates that right.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741 (citation modified). Although there need not
be a case directly on point, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or
constitutional question beyond debate.” Id.; see also Martinez v. High, 91 F.4th 1022, 1031
(9th Cir. 2024) (“[E]xisting case law must have put ‘every reasonable official’ on notice
that their conduct was unconstitutional.”); Shafer v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110,
1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (“For a right to be clearly established, case law must ordinarily have
been earlier developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious
to all reasonable government actors, in the defendant’s place, that what he is doing violates
federal law.”). “The plaintiff ‘bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated
were clearly established.’” Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117).
In response to Stromfors’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff asserted that she violated his
constitutional right to familial association by threatening him to openly lie to the court or
lose access to his father. Doc. 74 at 7 (citing Doc. 70 ¶ 211). But Plaintiff cited no legal
authority showing that this alleged constitutional violation was well established at the time
of the challenged conduct. See Doc. 89 at 6 (citing Doc. 74 at 7-8).
Plaintiff further asserted that Stromfors is being sued for exceeding her authority as
a best interests attorney, deceiving the family court into severing Plaintiff’s relationship
with his father, conspiring to secure a contract to send Plaintiff to BFB, and failing to report
his mother’s abuse. Doc. 74 at 11-12. But Plaintiff cited no case on similar facts where a
court has upheld a familial association or due process claim. See Doc. 89 at 6.
Because Plaintiff failed to show that the contours of his claimed rights were
sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what she was
doing violates those rights, the Court found that Stromfors is entitled to qualified immunity.
Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff asserted that Vigil violated his constitutional rights by failing to report the
abuse by Plaintiff’s mother for Vigil’s own financial benefit and by falsely reporting to the
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 10

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
family court that Dr. Raymond Branton, who served as the therapeutic interventionist
before Vigil, supported Plaintiff attending BFB. Doc. 75 at 6 (citing Doc. 70 ¶¶ 16-27).
Again, however, Plaintiff cited no case where, on similar facts, a court has upheld a familial
association or due process claim. See Doc. 89 at 7. The Court therefore found that qualified
immunity shields Vigil from liability on the § 1983 claims. Id.
Plaintiff has not shown that the Court committed manifest error in finding that
Stromfors and Vigil are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff asserts that the
constitutional right to family unity is well established. Doc. 94 at 15-19. But this right is
too general to satisfy the “clearly established” requirement and defeat qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court repeatedly has told courts “not to define clearly established law at a
high level of generality.” Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018). A court must instead
“examine ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established’ by
controlling precedent, not whether the conduct violates a general principle of law.” Sharp
v. Cnty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Thus, Plaintiff
must “identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances as [Defendants]
was held to have violated” the constitutional rights at issue. Id. at 911 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of identifying “prior case law that articulates a
constitutional rule specific enough to alert these [Defendants] in this case that their
particular conduct was unlawful.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional rights to familial association are reciprocal to
those of his father, and that this point is dispositive regarding qualified immunity. Docs.
94 at 17, 100 at 5, 12-13. But the Court did not find that Plaintiff has no constitutional
right to family unity, nor did the Court dismiss the § 1983 claims because Plaintiff was a
minor at the time of the challenged conduct. See Doc. 100 at 5.
Plaintiff contends that alleged false statements to the family court support a § 1983
judicial deception claim and that experimenting on Plaintiff through “therapeutic
intervention” defeats qualified immunity. Doc. 94 at 17-21. But Plaintiff did not make
these arguments in his responses to the motions to dismiss. See Docs. 74, 75, 77, 84. In
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 7 of 10

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seeking relief from an order under Rule 60(b)(6), a party may not “present new arguments
it failed to make prior to the issuance of the order.” Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v.
Walking U Ranch, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02482-CAS-GJSX, 2025 WL 1753501, at *5 (C.D.
Cal. June 2, 2025) (citation modified).6
B. Factual Allegations.
Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to accept his alleged facts as true and instead
accepted Defendants’ factual narrative. Doc. 94 at 10, 14, 21-23. This is not correct.
The facts the Court relied on in its dismissal order were taken from Plaintiff’s
complaint and family court records of which the Court can take judicial notice. See Doc.
89 at 1-4. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Court treated all well-pled factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construed them in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff. See id. at 3-4.
Plaintiff asserts that “therapeutic intervention” is not a safe and effective treatment
for any mental health condition, let alone “parental alienation syndrome,” which has not
been recognized as a legitimate condition. Doc. 94 at 9-10, 22-23; Doc. 100 at 5-9. But
the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims was not based on any such finding. The § 1983 claims
against Stromfors and Vigil were dismissed based on qualified immunity. The § 1983
claim against Rand was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to show that Rand was a state
actor. And the Bane Act claims against Verner and Rand were dismissed because the
alleged statements about sending Plaintiff to a wilderness therapy program do not
constitute a threat of violence for purposes of the Bane Act. See Doc. 89 at 4-12. At
bottom, the dismissal did not hinge on disputed facts or validity of mental health diagnoses
(see Doc. 94 at 10), but on proper legal conclusions.7
6 Plaintiff argues in his reply that Rand acted under color of state law by jointly
engaging in the challenged conduct with Stromfors and Vigil. Doc. 101 at 12. But Plaintiff
did not make this argument in his response to Rand’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 84 at 3-5),
and the Court will not consider an argument made for the first time in a reply brief. See
United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir. 2006)
7 Even if Plaintiff is correct that the Court construed facts in favor of Defendants,
this argument goes to the merits of the dismissal order which is not permitted under Rule
60(b)(6). See Nakanwagi v. City of Flagstaff, No. CV-21-08015-PCT-MHB, 2022 WL
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 8 of 10

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend.
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended complaint that would assert a Fourth
Amendment claim and allege that Defendants subjected Plaintiff to involuntary human
medical experimentation, psychological torture, false imprisonment, and other crimes
against humanity. Doc. 94 at 11, 19, 22. The Court may deny leave to amend on the basis
of undue delay or bad faith on the part of the requesting party, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Plaintiff already has amended his complaint twice in response to Defendants’
motions to dismiss. See Docs. 24, 70. Because Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to
cure deficiencies in his pleadings and has failed to do so, it is clear to the Court that further
amendment would be futile. What is more, this case is nearly a year and a half old and is
still at the pleading stage. Granting Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint would
result in undue delay and prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend
is denied.8
D. Defendants’ Request for Sanctions.
Defendants’ requests for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Docs. 97 at 11, 99 at 7)
are denied. See Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 24-CV-03089-PHK, 2025
WL 980796, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) (“With § 1927 as with other sanction
22865083, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2022) (“Legal error by itself does not warrant relief
under [Rule 60(b)(6)] and this rule cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.”); United
States v. Gray, No. 1:21-CV-3126-TOR, 2025 WL 581389, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 21,
2025) (“Defendant next argues the Court improperly weighed evidence in deciding the
summary judgment motion in favor of Plaintiff. This argument goes to the merits of the
judgment which is not permitted under Rule 60(b).”).
8 Because the Court will deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and in light of Plaintiff’s
appeal from the dismissal order, it is not clear that the Court has jurisdiction to grant
Plaintiff leave to amend even if the Court were inclined to do so. See Allmerica, 139 F.3d
at 665 (“Because Llewellyn filed his post-judgment motions several days after the
Judgment of Dismissal, the district court could not therefore entertain the Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Answer unless and until Llewellyn demonstrated that he was
entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).”). The Court also notes that the request for leave to
amend does not alter the Court’s decision to deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. See BLOM,
605 U.S. at 213 (“The Rule 60(b)(6) standard does not change when a party seeks to reopen
his case to amend his complaint. . . . Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy therefore
cannot weaken Rule 60(b)(6)’s ‘extraordinary circumstances’ standard.”).
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 9 of 10

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provisions, ‘district courts enjoy much discretion in determining whether and how much
sanctions are appropriate.’”) (citations omitted).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion (Doc. 94) is denied.
2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the Court of Appeals.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-01171-DGC Document 103 Filed 11/03/25 Page 10 of 10