Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER that 16 Motion to Reconsider and 17 Motion for Injunctive Relief are DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 ANNETTE WALKER-GOGGINS, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:15-CV-1839 JCM (CWH) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order 14 adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (ECF 15 No. 16). Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 17) Defendant 16 has not filed a response and the deadline to do so has passed. 17 Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommended that plaintiff be allowed to proceed in forma 18 pauperis but that defendant’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Hoffman 19 found that plaintiff’s complaint contained “incoherent, fanciful, and delusional claims and 20 descriptions [that] do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (ECF No. 8). 21 Plaintiff filed an “objection” but did not object to any of the magistrate judge’s findings. 22 Instead, plaintiff simply listed “appealed” next to the motions that Magistrate Judge Hoffman 23 recommended denying after concluding that plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous. (ECF. No. 11). 24 This court agreed with the magistrate judge’s findings and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with 25 prejudice. (ECF No. 13). 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider (ECF No. 16) and motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 17). 1 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 2 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 3 an intervening change in controlling law.” Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Shriners Hosp. For Children, 4 No. 2:09-cv-398, 2012 WL 642523, *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2012) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J v. 5 AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993); see generally FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) and (6) 6 (stating that a court may relieve a party from an order for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 7 excusable neglect” or “any other reason that justifies relief.”). 8 In her motions for reconsideration and injunctive relief, plaintiff merely recites statements 9 that she has included in previous motions. (ECF Nos. 16, 17). Plaintiff claims she “was instructed 10 to reproduce *5th (fifth) time, the “Divorce Set Aside” of the holy matrimony of the victim Terry 11 V Annette Walker, Superior Court The County of Muscogee, State of George Case No. SU 98DM 12 2341-8.” (ECF No. 16). In 2009, she claims she submitted an SSI application but received an 13 “unfavorable decision” because “her husband’s deemed income was too high for her to qualify….” 14 (Id.). Consequently, plaintiff claims “The defendants Social Security Administration, Ms. 15 Anderson, & State of Nevada * but not limited to have Obstructed Justice that has caused 16 irreversible pain and suffering.” (Id.). 17 Plaintiff’s motion provides this court with no newly discovered evidence nor has there been 18 any intervening change in controlling law. Morgan Stanley, 2012 WL 642523 at *2. Having 19 weighed plaintiff’s arguments on several occasions, there is no evidence that the order dismissing 20 the complaint was a “clear error or . . . manifestly unjust.” Morgan Stanley, 2012 WL 642523 at 21 *2. Furthermore, as plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with prejudice and judgment has been 22 entered, her request for injunctive relief is in inappropriate. Therefore, plaintiff’s requests for 23 reconsideration and injunctive relief are denied. 24 ... 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to 3 reconsider (ECF No. 16) and motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 17) be, and the same hereby 4 are, DENIED. 5 DATED July 18, 2016. 6 7 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3-

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?