Aguilera v. City of Las Cruces et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge David H. Urias denying 25 MOTION to Reopen Case. (arp)

Case 2:22-cv-00078-DHU-KRS Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EDDIE DAN AGUILERA,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:22-cv-00078-DHU-KRS

CITY OF LAS CRUCES,
KEN MIYAGISHIMA,
MIGUEL DOMINGUEZ,
GUILLERMO IBARRA,
JAIME ARROYO, and
CHRISTOPHER GAMEZ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his original Complaint on February 2, 2022. See
Doc. 1. United States Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff's
Complaint failed to state a claim, ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and notified
Plaintiff that the Court will order service if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that states a claim
over which the Court has jurisdiction and also files a motion for service which provides
Defendants' addresses. See Doc. 6 at 4-5, filed February 7, 2022.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. See Doc. 7. The undersigned
dismissed some of the claims in the Amended Complaint asserted in the Amended Complaint,
ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that the Court will order
service if Plaintiff files a second amended complaint that states a claim over which the Court has
jurisdiction and provides names and addresses of each Defendant. See Doc. 16 at 4-5, filed March
21, 2022.

Case 2:22-cv-00078-DHU-KRS Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on March 29, 2022. See Doc. 17. The
undersigned dismissed the claims in the Second Amended Complaint asserted against all
Defendants except for Defendant Ibarra and notified Plaintiff that he has not provided Defendant
Ibarra's address for service. See Doc. 21, filed May 3, 2022.
On June 9, 2022, Judge Sweazea notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff has not provided the
address for the sole remaining Defendant in this case, ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for service
which provides Defendant Ibarra's address and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file the
motion with Defendant Ibarra's address may result in dismissal of this case. See Doc. 22. Plaintiff
did not file a motion for service providing the address for Defendant Ibarra by the June 30, 2022,
deadline.
The Court dismissed this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Judge Sweazea's Order to provide the
address of the sole remaining Defendant in this case. See Doc. 23, filed August 4, 2022.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reopen this case. See Motion to Reopen, Refill [sic] and or
Amend Complaint, and or Defendents [sic], Doc. 25, filed December 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Motion
to Reopen states in its entirety:
I here by plead the Courts to allow me to reopen case # 22-00078 in light of new
evidence that shows a high number of officers direct involvment in acts taken to
cause direct harm upon me either physicaly and or mentaly.
[sic] Motion to Reopen at 1.
"A case may be reopened under Rule 60(b) for a variety of reasons." Brewer v. City of
Overland Park Police Dept., 24 Fed.Appx. 977, 978 (10th Cir. 2002). Rule 60 provides:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

2

Case 2:22-cv-00078-DHU-KRS Document 27 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

(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 (whether previously called intrinsic
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

or

extrinsic),

(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 vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is an extraordinary remedy
and may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program,
880 F.3d 1176, 1191–92 (10th Cir. 2018).
The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen this case. The only ground for reopening
this case that Plaintiff asserts is "new evidence." Plaintiff does not describe the new evidence,
does not show that he could not have previously discovered the new evidence with reasonable
diligence, and does not set forth any argument regarding exceptional circumstances that would
warrant reopening this case.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen, Refill [sic] and or Amend Complaint,
and or Defendents [sic], Doc. 25, filed December 7, 2022, is DENIED.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3