Parra Ascencio v. Hernandez et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Parra Ascensio must not file any more requests for reconsideration or clarification. Any more documents he submits for filing will be summarily rejected. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/9/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS PARRA ASCENSIO, 12 CASE NO. 13cv1538-LAB (PCL) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60 vs. 13 14 ROBERT HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Parra Ascensio, who was a prisoner when this case was filed, first litigated 17 his claims unsuccessfully in case 10cv2454-BTM (WVG), Diparra v. Bennet, et al. (S.D. Cal., 18 filed Nov. 29, 2010). Six months after the last activity in that docket, he filed his complaint 19 in this case, raising the same claims. The court dismissed the action as frivolous. Parra 20 Ascensio brought an appeal, which was unsuccessful; his appeal was dismissed on 21 February 10, 2014. After that, he attempted to reopen the case, but the filing he submitted 22 was rejected on July 16, 2014. 23 24 Parra Ascensio has now submitted a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the Court has accepted by discrepancy order. 25 The motion says Parra Ascensio is no longer in prison, as he was when he litigated 26 his previous claims. In an apparent effort to explain why he failed to litigate his claims 27 successfully earlier and why he waited so long to seek reconsideration, he explains that he 28 is a mental health patient. He asks the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of his -1- 13cv1538 1 appeal, which he blames on clerical error. He blames several federal district judges for 2 confusing him. 3 misunderstanding court procedures and causing his claims to be dismissed. He blames the 4 prison library’s short hours for his neglect of his case. He also points to his pro se status, 5 which he believes excuses his errors and neglect. He blames several “counselors,” apparently jailhouse lawyers, for 6 The motion is frivolous. Even though he was proceeding pro se, Parra Ascensio is 7 required to obey the same procedural rules as other litigants; this includes obeying 8 deadlines, following required procedures, and prosecuting his claims. See Ghazali v. Moran, 9 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, he has provided no acceptable reason why he 10 neglected his case for years. The health records he has submitted do not show he was 11 incapacitated or unable to file pleadings or prosecute his case. And finally, the Court has 12 no authority to require the Ninth Circuit to reinstate his appeal. 13 The motion is DENIED, and Parra Ascensio must not file any more requests for 14 reconsideration or clarification. Any more documents he submits for filing will be summarily 15 rejected. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 9, 2016 19 20 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 13cv1538

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?