Urmancheev v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Health Services Corps et al

1
3:22-cv-0762-CAB-MSB
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
A.S. URMANCHEEV,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT HEALTH SERVICES
CORPS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:22-cv-0762-CAB-MSB
ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Doc. No. 31]
Before the Court is Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev and Defendant United States of
America’s joint motion to vacate this Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s Federal Tort
Claims Act claim against the United States. 	[Doc. No. 31.] 	Plaintiff also moves for an
order vacating dismissal of his Bivens claim against the individual federal defendants and
granting leave to amend his second amended complaint to add state-law tort claims against
the non-federal individual defendants. 	[Id.] 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court
VACATES the Court’s prior order dismissing Plaintiff’s second amended complaint
without leave to amend and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against various
government entities, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. Nos.
Case 3:22-cv-00762-CAB-MSB Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:22-cv-0762-CAB-MSB
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
1, 2.] The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) based on deficiencies in the identification
of proper defendants. 	[Doc. No. 3.] 	Plaintiff thereafter filed a first amended complaint,
which suffered from substantially the same deficiencies as his initial complaint. [Doc. No.
8.] 	The Court again dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. 	[Doc.
No. 10.] 	Following multiple extensions of time, Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which similarly failed to cure the previously identified deficiencies. [Doc. No.
18.] 	Accordingly, on June 20, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint without further leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	[Doc.
No. 20.]
Plaintiff timely appealed the dismissal of his second amended complaint without
further leave to amend. [Doc. No. 21.] On appeal, the Ninth Circuit appointed pro bono
counsel for Plaintiff’s appeal. [Doc. No. 31 at 8.] The parties subsequently participated in
several mediation conferences with a Ninth Circuit mediator and reached an agreement to
conditionally settle the appeal; pursuant to that agreement, the parties filed the instant joint
motion to vacate. [Id.]
II. 	DISCUSSION
“‘Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing
of exceptional circumstances.’” 	Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044
(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809
(7th Cir. 1977)). 	The parties jointly move to vacate under Rule 60(b)(5), which permits
relief from a final judgment where “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). The parties argue that
the balances of equities favor vacatur because it “will foster the judicial policy favoring
settlement and mediation and prevent the expenditure of judicial and party resources o[n]
appeal.” [Doc. No. 31 at 10.]
Case 3:22-cv-00762-CAB-MSB Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:22-cv-0762-CAB-MSB
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
In light of the procedural history of this case, Plaintiff’s prior pro se status, his
current representation by counsel, and the parties’ joint request following appellate
mediation, the Court finds it consistent with the interests of justice to vacate the prior order
of dismissal and permit Plaintiff another opportunity to amend.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court VACATES the June 20, 2023 order of dismissal. The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint within twenty-one days of the
date of this order. 	Any third amended complaint must cure the deficiencies previously
identified by the Court and must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
amended complaint must be complete and SHALL NOT incorporate material from prior
complaints by reference.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 26, 2026
Case 3:22-cv-00762-CAB-MSB Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3