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)

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