Lu v. Baker., Jr et al

Filing 53

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying 50 Motion for Scheduling Conference; denying 51 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 52 Motion for Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff is warned that if he continues to file motions seeking reli ef that has already been denied, the Court will find such conduct sanctionable as vexatious and an abuse of the processes of this Court for the administration of justice. This warning does not apply to the filing of timely notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and papers solely in furtherance of such an appeal. The Clerk mailed a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address listed on the cm/ecf docket. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES D. BAKER, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. Action No. 15-10615-PBS

ORDER
June 7, 2016
SARIS, C.D.J.
By Memorandum and Order dated May 4, 2016, this pro se
action was dismissed.

See Docket No. 48.

On May 17, 2016,

thirteen days after this case was closed, Plaintiff’s motion for
scheduling conference was filed.

See Docket No. 50.

Apparently, Plaintiff mailed his motion to the Court before
receiving a copy of the Court’s order dismissing the case.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and a
renewed motion for scheduling conference.

See Docket Nos. 51,

52.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
authorizes a court to grant a party relief from a prior final
judgment for certain enumerated reasons.

The granting of a

motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy which
should be used sparingly.”
24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006).

Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d

Even though Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration does not identify the applicable section under

which he seeks relief, the motion fails to state any legitimate
basis to have this Court reconsider its prior order to dismiss
this action.

Because Plaintiff fails to establish that

reconsideration is warranted, the motion will be denied.
Additionally, the motions for scheduling conference will be
disregarded because they were improperly filed in a closed case.
See Fisher v. Kadant, 589 F. 3d 505, 509 (1st Cir. 2009)
(holding that unless Rule 60 motion allowed, and judgment set
aside, “the case is a dead letter, and the district court is
without power to allow an amendment to the complaint because
there is no complaint left to amend.”).
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for
scheduling conference simply states that “[t]he court must
accept the inconvenient fact, that the case is not going away.”
See Docket No. 50.

It appears that Plaintiff will not accept

the finality of the rulings by this Court.

Despite the

dismissal of this action, Plaintiff has filed motions seeking
relief that has already been denied.

Plaintiff is warned that

if he continues to file motions1 in this closed case seeking
relief that has already been denied, the Court will find such
conduct sanctionable as vexatious and an abuse of the processes
of this Court for the administration of justice.

1

This warning does not pertain to the filing of timely notices of
appeal. 
2 

ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 51) for Reconsideration
is DENIED.

2.

The Plaintiff’s Motions (Docket Nos. 50, 52) for
Scheduling Conference are DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff is warned that if he continues to file
motions seeking relief that has already been denied,
the Court will find such conduct sanctionable as
vexatious2 and an abuse of the processes of this Court
for the administration of justice. This warning does
not apply to the filing of timely notices of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit and papers solely in furtherance of such an
appeal.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 Vexatious conduct occurs where a party’s actions are “frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation.” Local 285 Serv. Employees
Int’l v. Nontuck Res. Assoc., Inc., 64 F.3d 735, 737 (1st Cir.
1995) (internal citations omitted). Vexatious conduct may be
found even in the absence of subjective bad intent, Local 285
Serv. Employees Int’l, 64 F.3d at 737. 

3