Ruiz v. Curry

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 48 Second Motion for Reconsideration and Appointment of Counsel signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

12
13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01407-DAD-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL

J. CURRY,

15

Defendant.

(Doc. No. 48)

16
17

Before the court is plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz’s second motion for reconsideration of the

18

court’s prior order dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a

19

claim. (Doc. No. 48.) This court already denied plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration and

20

request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 46) as untimely and frivolous, noting that plaintiff

21

had filed a similar motion in the Ninth Circuit, where it was also rejected as untimely, with the

22

Ninth Circuit stating that “[n]o further filings will be entertained in this closed case.” (Doc. No.

23

47 at 1–2.) In this court’s order denying plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration, the court

24

similarly admonished plaintiff that “[n]o further filings will be entertained in this closed case.”

25

(Id. at 3.)

26

Nevertheless, on August 3, 2020, plaintiff filed the pending second motion for

27

reconsideration (Doc. No. 48), which, as with his first motion for reconsideration, again fails to

28

identify any basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for this court to reconsider its
1

1

finding that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under applicable law.

2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration will be denied as frivolous and

3

untimely. In addition, plaintiff is again admonished that this case is closed, and the court will not

4

entertain any further filings in this case nor issue further orders in response thereto.

5

Accordingly,

6

1.

7

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 48) is
denied;

8

2.

This case shall remain closed;

9

3.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case; and

10

4.

No further orders will issue in response to unauthorized filings by plaintiff.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 4, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2