Rodriguez v. State of Ohio et al

Filing 15

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/12/19. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and his order for non-response of jurisdictional issues. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Docs. 11 and 13 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------JUAN-ALBERTO RUIZ RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

:
: CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01124
:
:
:
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. Nos. 11, 13]
:
:
:
:

------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its judgment dismissing this action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 For the following reasons, the
Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motions.
Plaintiff filed this action on May 15, 2018. The Complaint was composed entirely
of meaningless rhetoric and listed no factual allegations or actual legal claims. It appeared
from the attachments to the Complaint that Plaintiff Rodriguez was attempting to challenge
his 2007 conviction with documents he seemingly created under the Uniform Commercial
Code (“UCC”). With his complaint, Rodriguez seeks release from prison.
This Court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, saying Rodriguez’ only
federal remedy for challenging his state court conviction was habeas corpus.2 This Court
1
2

Doc. Nos. 11 and 13.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

also found that to the extent Rodriguez was attempting to pursue some other kind of
claim, he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff filed two Motions seeking reconsideration of this judgment, contending his
case had merit. He once again argues his UCC documents demonstrated the “debt alleged
against him had already been satisfied,” depriving the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas of jurisdiction to prosecute him. He seeks relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b)(1), (4) and (5).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), a district court may grant a
Motion for Relief from the Judgment for any of the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment
upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable
that the judgment should have prospective application; or
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Rule 60(b) does not present a litigant with a second opportunity to rephrase prior
allegations.3
Plaintiff’s Motions do not show any basis for Rule 60(b) relief. He does not
demonstrate an error of law for relief under subsection (1). The judgment to which
3

Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 268 (1998).

2

subsections (4) and (5) refer is the judgment of this Court. Plaintiff uses these provisions to
restate his position that his state court conviction is void because his debt was satisfied
under the UCC. The Court considered and rejected these arguments. They do not entitle
him to relief from this Court’s judgment.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration4 and his Order for Non-Response of
Jurisdictional Issues5 are DENIED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2019

s/

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
5
6

Doc. No. 11
Doc. No. 13
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in
good faith.

3