Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-02349-PJH

Document 29

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

MICHAEL A. LOGWOOD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PETER SPENCER, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. _______________________________/ On July 30, 2008, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the above-entitled action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and judgment was entered in favor of defendant. On August 4, 2008, plaintiff filed an "Eighth Opposition," which the court interprets as a supplemental opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss). The court does not consider supplemental oppositions filed after it has ruled on a motion. On August 5, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow for motions for reconsideration. Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be brought under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Hinton v. Pacific Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration of summary judgment is appropriately brought under either rule). Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION No. C 08-2349 PJH

Case 3:08-cv-02349-PJH

Document 29

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final judgment for 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 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 The court finds that the motion must be DENIED because plaintiff has failed to 14 satisfy any of the Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) factors. The motion is largely unintelligible, but 15 as far as the court can ascertain, plaintiff does not argue that the court committed clear 16 error or that the decision was manifestly unjust; does not assert that relief is warranted 17 because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; does not point to any 18 newly-discovered evidence or any intervening change in the law; does not claim any fraud 19 or misrepresentation by defendant; does not assert that the judgment is void; does not 20 argue that the judgment should have no prospective application; and does not raise any 21 other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 8, 2008 25 26 27 28 2 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02349-PJH

Document 29-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. LOGWOOD, Plaintiff, v. PETER SPENCER et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02349 PJH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 8, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Anthony Logwood General Delivery 101 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Dated: August 8, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nichole Heuerman, Deputy Clerk