Heram v. United States Government

Filing 99

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/1/2015 DENYING 95 Motion to Stay. This case is CLOSED. Any future filings with this court will be disregarded. No further orders will be issued in this closed case. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Raghvendra Singh (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against

18

the United States Government (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2013. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On

19

February 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan issued a Finding and Recommendation

20

(“F&R”), advising that Plaintiff’s claims be denied and that the case be closed. (F&R, ECF No.

21

73.) On March 31, 2015, this Court adopted the F&R and ordered that the case be closed.

22

(Order, ECF No. 84.)

23

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions in an attempt to urge the Court to reconsider closing

24

his case. On April 20, 2015, and April 21, 2015, this Court issued two separate minute orders

25

denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 90), Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Vacate

26

or Revise Decision (ECF No. 92), and Motion to Restrain Assessment or To Order Refund (ECF

27

No. 93). (ECF No. 90; ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff has since filed an additional Motion to Stay. (ECF

28

No. 95.) For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous order, the Court hereby DENIES
1

1
2

Plaintiff’s motion on the merits.
The Court’s previous order (ECF No. 89) denied Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 88) on the

3

basis that Plaintiff failed to meet one of Rule 60(b)’s criteria for relief. Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60”) states as follows:

5
6

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:

7

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

8

(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);

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(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.

16

Again, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is full of ramblings and conspiracy theories without

17

any factual allegations that could support relief under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff has not met this

18

burden and thus cannot be afforded relief. As such, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 95) is DENIED.

19
20
21
22

This case is closed. Should Plaintiff continue to disagree with the Court’s ruling, the
appropriate course of action is to seek remedy from the Ninth Circuit. Any future filings with this
Court will be diregarded. No further orders will be issued in this closed case.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: May 1, 2015

25
26

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
2