Middleton v. Citibank, N.A. Inc.

Filing 91

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 86 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Relief from Judgment Made in Violation of Due Process is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/30/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7

ERVIN MIDDLETON,

8

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00622-RFB-NJK
ORDER

9
v.
10
11
12

CITIBANK, NA.,
Defendant.

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Relief from Judgment Made in

15
Violation of Due Process, which the Court construes as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant
16
17
18
19
20
21

to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 86. The Court finds no basis for
relief and therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.
On September 30, 2018, the Court issued an Order striking from the docket two filings by
Plaintiff that improperly purported to carry dispositive legal authority. ECF No. 74. The Court
ordered that “if Plaintiff files ANY other such documents in this record, his case may be dismissed

22
23

with prejudice as a sanction for seeking to usurp this Courts inherent authority and for perpetuating

24

a fraud on the Court and the parties in this action.” Id. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a

25

document entitled “2nd and Final Notice of Fault and Opportunity To Cure,” which purports to be

26

an order of “Fault” which “settles [Plaintiff’s] demand in my favor.” ECF No. 79. On December

27
17, 2019, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case with prejudice as a sanction, finding that
28

1

the document at ECF No. 79 was “precisely the type of document” that Plaintiff had been warned

2

not to file. ECF No. 84. The Court applied the five-factor test set forth by the Ninth Circuit and

3

found that the factors weighed in favor of dismissal. Id.

4
5

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court may relieve the

6

parties from its summary judgment order on various grounds, including the Court’s mistake and

7

any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff presents no argument that

8

justifies relief from judgment in this case. Plaintiff argues that the Court could not issue judgment

9

because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court does not agree, though even if this were

10
11

true, dismissal and case closure would be the appropriate outcome. Plaintiff also argues that the

12

Court’s judgment violates due process. The Court agrees that its use of sanctions “is tempered by

13

the requirements of due process.” United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d

14

1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980). However, the Court provided notice and an opportunity to be heard

15

to Plaintiff when it issued an order expressly stating that additional filings purporting to be orders

16
17

of this Court would result in case-terminating sanctions. When Plaintiff disregarded this order and

18

continued to usurp the Court’s authority, the Court had the legal authority to issue case-terminating

19

sanctions. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

20

1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). Plaintiff identifies no error in the Court’s factual findings

21

or legal analysis, nor any other reason justifying relief from judgment in this case.

22
23
24
25

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Relief from Judgment
Made in Violation of Due Process (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.
DATED this 30th day of August, 2019.

26

____________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

-2-