Banks v. Roe
ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Other than a notice of appeal, no action will be taken on any further filings under this cause number. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/13/2017. Mailed to Banks. (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
NOV 13 2017
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Cause No. CV 17-96-M-DLC
ADRIAN ROE, et. al.,
This matter was dismissed with prejudice on September 19, 2017. (Doc. 9.)
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Return of Overpayment of Fees, (Doc. 10), which
was denied. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and requested counsel be appointed to
represent him. (Doc. 12.)
Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for "( 1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacate or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Rule 60(b )(6) "is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances"
exist. Harvestv. Castro, 531F.3d 737m, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)(citations omitted).
The moving party "must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his
control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion."
Id., citing Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 453 F. 3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir.
2006). "A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the
controlling law." Marilyn Nutraceuticlas, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH& Co., 571
F. 3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009), citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F. 3d
656, 665 (91h Cir. 1999).
Banks argues that an order from the Fourth Circuit should control and
disagrees with this Court's interpretation and application of Bruce v. Samuels, 136
S. Ct. 62 7 (2016), to the collection of fees in the present case. But Banks fails to
make the requisite showing of a convincing nature that would compel this Court to
alter its prior decision. Banks has not submitted evidence to demonstrate clear
error exists. Likewise, he has not established this case presents the rare
circumstance in which extraordinary relief should be afforded. Therefore, Banks'
motion for reconsideration and appointment of counsel shall be denied. Banks'
remedy, if any, lies in appeal.
Based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
1. Banks' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED;
2. This case is CLOSED. Other than a notice of appeal, no action will be
taken on any further filings under this cause number.
DATED this \3""1 day of November, 017.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?