Barren v. Roger et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying Barren's 21 Motion for Reinstatement. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/4/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16

GREGORY D. BARREN, SR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID ROGER, District Attorney; OFFICER )
T. ROBINSON, P# 7466; OFFICER R. KENT, )
P# 6179; OFFICER D. SHANE, P# 6727,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00650-RLH-CWH
ORDER
(Motion for Reinstatement–#21)

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory D. Barren, Sr.’s Motion for Reinstatement

19

Pursuant to EDCR 2.90 (#21, filed Feb. 13, 2012). The Court has also considered Defendants

20

Opposition (#22, filed Feb. 22), and Barren’s Reply (#23, filed Feb. 28).

21

On January 19, 2012, this Court dismissed Barren’s complaint because he had only

22

pled his claims against the Defendants in their official capacities, making his claims actually

23

against the governmental entities the Defendants represented. To properly sue a government entity

24

under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the constitutional deprivation of which he

25

complains “was inflicted pursuant to an official policy or custom.” Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley

26

Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir 2001) (citing Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

658, 690-91 (1978). Barren’s complaint did not include any allegations regarding official policies,

2

customs, or anything related. (See Dkt. #19, Order; Dkt. #3, Compl.) Thus, the Court dismissed

3

Barren’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Barren now seeks to have his case “reinstated.”

4

The Court takes this to mean that Barren seeks reconsideration, or, in this case, relief from a

5

judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

6

To obtain relief from an order under Rule 60(b) a party must show: (1) mistake,

7

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud,

8

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; the judgment

9

has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

10

operation of the judgment. Barren did not address any of these elements in his motion, but rather

11

issues irrelevant to this analysis. Further, the issues Barren addresses in his Reply are not

12

sufficient for the Court to grant relief from its order and judgment. Thus, the Court denies

13

Barren’s motion. As such, Barren’s request in his reply that the Court appoint an attorney for him

14

is denied as moot.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Barren’s Motion for Reinstatement (#21) is

18
19

DENIED.
Dated: April 4, 2012.

20
21

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2