Missud v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 148

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 145 Motion for Reconsideration re 143 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 140 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 137 Declaration in Support, filed by Patri ck A. Missud, 145 Third MOTION for Reconsideration re 129 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Will You do like Chen and Grant this Time?Third MOTION for Reconsideration re 129 Order on Motion for Leave to Proc eed in forma pauperis Will You do like Chen and Grant this Time? filed by Patrick A. Missud, 129 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 130 Request for Judicial Notice, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 135 Request for J udicial Notice, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 142 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 139 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 136 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 147 Declaration in Sup port, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 141 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 132 Second MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Directly Petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court filed by Patrick A. Missud, 138 Declara tion in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 133 Request for Judicial Notice, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 144 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 146 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud, 134 Declaration in Support, filed by Patrick A. Missud. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
PATRICK A MISSUD,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

v.

14

SEC,

15

No. C 12-161 DMR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
COMPLY WITH COURT FILING
RULES

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Patrick Missud moves the court pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

18

Procedure to reconsider its July 19, 2012 order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis

19

on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, [see Docket No. 129]. In that

20

decision, the court found that Plaintiff met the financial criteria to proceed in forma pauperis, but

21

denied the application because "any appeal would be frivolous," as Plaintiff "ha[d] consistently

22

failed to present the court with any viable claim." [Docket No. 129 at 2.]

23

Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order for "(1) mistake,

24

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party, . . . or (6) any

25

other reason that justifies relief." Manago v. Gonzales, No. 11-CV-1229, 2012 WL 439404, at *1

26

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2012) (ellipses in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see Rogers v. Santa

27

Cruz Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 00-779 MMC (PR), 2007 WL 4259286, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3,

28

2007). A court should invoke Rule 60(b)(6) "'sparingly,'" "'where extraordinary circumstances . . .

1

'exist," and only "'as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.'" Manago, 2012 WL

2

439404, at *1 (ellipses in original) (quoting Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008));

3

accord Rogers, 2007 WL 4259286, at *1 (citing Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo,

4

637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981)). The court should not grant a motion for reconsideration

5

"'absent highly unusual circumstances'" and only if the court "'is presented with newly discovered

6

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.'"

7

Manago, 20123 WL 439404, at *1 (quoting Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &

8

Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)).

since the inception of this case. He makes no attempt to address the grounds upon which the court

11

denied the in forma papueris application which he now challenges. Because Plaintiff has failed to

12

meet his burden, the court denies his motion for reconsideration.

13

The court also notes that since it entered final judgment in this case on July 18, 2012,

14

[Docket No. 126], Plaintiff has filed over 16 requests for judicial notice and declarations. The Court

15

reminds Plaintiff, a member of this Court's bar, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any

16

requested relief because the case is on appeal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a), and admonishes him for

17

failing to comply with the Local Rules regarding written requests to the court, N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.

18

7-1, 7-9. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the Local Rules in future filings with this Court.

S
Dated: September 4, 2012

22

D

DENIE

NO

RT

24

ER

H

25

onna
Judge D

26
27
28

2

M. Ryu

FO

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

23

LI

21

RT
U
O

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

19

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

In his motion, Plaintiff rehashes the same frivolous arguments that he has offered the court

10

United States District Court

9

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C