Macdonald v. Willett Investment Properties et al

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case 13 is DENIED and his Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 14 is also DENIED as moot. Signed on 1/21/2021 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 1/21/2021.) (ck)

Case 6:16-cv-01250-MK

Document 17

Filed 01/21/21

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM CRAIG MACDONALD

Case No. 6:16-cv-01250-MK
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLETT INVESTMENT PROPERTIES;
et al.,
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen this case, which was dismissed in
November 2016. The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as one filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows the Court to reconsider and
amend a previous order in narrow circumstances. Under Rule 60(b), a litigant may
seek relief from final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court’s decision; (3)

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:16-cv-01250-MK

Document 17

Filed 01/21/21

Page 2 of 3

fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment as been
satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion
under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and, under subsections (1),
(2), and (3), “no more than a year after entry of the judgment or order or the date of
the proceeding.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Reconsideration is “an extraordinary

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). Reconsideration of a prior ruling is appropriate where a
litigant can show an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new
evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Nunes v.
Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807–08 (9th Cir. 2004).
On July 15, 2016, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state
a claim and allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in
his original pleading, which plaintiff filed on August 5, 2016. Docs. 6, 8. On October
12, 2016, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days. Doc. 9. Plaintiff did not respond with a second
amended complaint within the time allowed and, on November 21, 2016, the Court
dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order. Docs.
11, 12.
Plaintiff filed this motion on July 17, 2020. Doc. 13. Like plaintiff’s earlier
filings, the motion is difficult to decipher, but it does not appear to advance any
grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Moreover, plaintiff does not explain

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:16-cv-01250-MK

Document 17

Filed 01/21/21

Page 3 of 3

why he failed to file a timely second amended complaint or why he took nearly four
years to seek relief from the Court’s judgment. On this record, the Court cannot find
that the motion was filed “within a reasonable time” as required by Rule 60(c).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (doc. 13) is DENIED and his Application for
Leave to Proceed IFP (doc. 14) is also DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2021
____

/s/Ann Aiken
__________________________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER