Free Order on Motion to Reopen Case - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pending is Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen Case (Doc. #32) filed on July 24, 2006. This Court dismissed the action against Defendant Industrial Commission of Arizona on November 10, 2004 (Doc. #16), and against the remaining Defendants on November 29, 2004 for failure to effect proper service (Doc. #17). On September 25, 2005 and again on November 15, 2005 the Court denied Plaintiff's Motions For Relief From Judgment (Doc. #25, 27). The present motion seeks to reopen the case, which the Court will construe as a third Motion For Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Like the previous motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff cites no legal authority warranting the requested relief. In its Order of September 25, 2005 the Court set forth the grounds for which it grants relief from judgment and instructed the Plaintiff that a Rule 60 motion is not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs,
Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS Document 33 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IGNACIO LOPEZ, Plaintiff, vs. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ARIZONA, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) OF) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04 0128-PHX-ROS ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988), nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). For the third time, Plaintiff reasserts arguments previously made, and fails to establish any of the grounds warranting relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). As a result, reconsideration is not warranted and Plaintiff's motion is denied. This case is closed. The Court has already instructed Plaintiff not to file any additional motions unless they are permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Plaintiff that his failure to adhere to the terms of this Order will result in sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. If Plaintiff files additional such motions, they will be stricken from the record and Plaintiff will be ordered to appear to show cause why sanctions, including attorneys fees, costs of the Court and opposing counsel, and contempt of court, should not ensue. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen Case (Doc. #32) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that additional motions for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60 shall be stricken from the record. If Plaintiff files such motions he will be ordered to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS Document 33 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 2