Heram v. United States Government
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/15/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 88 Motion to Stay. (Marciel, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
Plaintiff Raghvendra Singh (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against
the United States Government (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2013. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On
February 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan issued a Finding and Recommendation
(“F&R”), advising that Plaintiff’s claims be denied and that the case be closed. (F&R, ECF No.
73.) On March 31, 2015, this Court adopted the F&R and ordered that the case be closed.
(Order, ECF No. 84.)
Plaintiff has filed two motions following the closing of the case: a Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 86) and a Motion to Stay (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration was defectively noticed and thus the Court ordered Plaintiff to refile in
compliance with Local Rule 230(b). (Min. Order, ECF No. 87.) However, Plaintiff did not heed
the Court’s advice and subsequently filed the instant Motion to Stay, again not complying with
the local rules. Thus, this motion should again be stricken as improper. However, in an effort to
prevent this cycle from repeating itself the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion on the merits.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay it becomes clear that Plaintiff’s intent is for this
Court to reconsider its order closing this case. Thus, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant the
Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 88) as a Motion to Reconsider. See Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
(“Rule 60”) states as follows:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) 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; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Therefore, for relief to be afforded, Plaintiff must meet one of Rule 60(b)’s criteria for relief.
Plaintiff’s motion is full of ramblings and conspiracy theories without any factual
allegations that could support relief under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff has not met this
burden and thus cannot be afforded relief. As such, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No.
88) is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2015
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?