Haque v. United States Attorney General et al
ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case 54 is denied; all pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/3/15.(REW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States Attorney General, et al.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 54). The Court
now rules on the motion.
Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its May, 2012 Order dismissing the
case and transfer the case to another venue. In support of this request, Plaintiff offers an
order from another case he has filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia
which transferred the case to the Northern District of California.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 governs when a district court may reconsider a
final judgment. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or
judgment on various grounds, including 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; 2) newly discovered evidence; 3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing party; or
4) any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The
motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, and with respect to
the first three grounds, no more than a year after the entry of the judgment, order, or
proceeding. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).
Here, Plaintiff’s case has been closed for nearly three years, Plaintiff’s motions to
reopen the case have repeatedly been denied, and this Court’s decisions have been
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit twice. Plaintiff makes no argument that there has been any
mistake, surprise, neglect, or misconduct, or that any new evidence has been discovered
that may justify reopening the case. In other words, Plaintiff offers no reason why this
case should be reopened except that another court has transferred one of his cases to the
Northern District of California. This is not a reason to reopen a case that has rightfully
been dismissed for failure to serve the defendants and failure to state a claim. Indeed, the
D.C. District Court case mentions nothing about service or Plaintiff’s claims at all.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case.
Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, the case remains
closed and all other pending motions are denied as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, (Doc. 54), is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?