Bruzzone v. United States Attorney of Northern California District

Filing 46

AMENDED 45 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 40 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/8/2023. ***The Court further DIRECTS Plaintiff not to file anything on the docket of this closed c ase, or to send materials to the Clerks Office in relation to this case.** (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL A BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT,

11

Case No. 22-cv-06412-HSG
AMENDED ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER OR AMEND
THE JUDGMENT1
Re: Dkt. No. 40

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
On August 15, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

13
14

complaint without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 38 (“the Order”). The Court determined that because

15

Defendant was immune from suit, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, in any

16

event, the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Id. The Court additionally

17

granted Defendant’s request to expand the vexatious litigant pre-filing order to cover any cases

18

filed by Plaintiff against Defendant and its employees related to Plaintiff’s claims against Intel or

19

its employees. Id. at 10. Pursuant to the Order, the Clerk terminated the case and entered

20

judgment in favor of Defendant. Dkt Nos. 38, 39.
On September 11, 2023, the Clerk’s Office received from Plaintiff a motion purportedly

21
22

requesting relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, which the Court deems filed.

23

Dkt. No. 40. Not unlike many of Plaintiff’s prior filings, this one is hard to follow, but the Court

24

identifies no new relevant facts or arguments that compel the Court to disturb the judgment

25

entered in favor of Defendant (an immune sovereign), or to otherwise reconsider or revise its prior

26

detailed ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion, Dkt. No. 40.

27
28

The Court’s order at Dkt. No. 45 inadvertently referred to “Defendant” in the caption. The Court
files this amended order to address that issue; the body of the order remains unchanged.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

The Court further DIRECTS Plaintiff not to file anything on the docket of this closed
case, or to send materials to the Clerk’s office in relation to this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/8/2023
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2