Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - 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 Demanding Payment of Claim From Suffered Injuries (Doc. #26) filed on October 20, 2005. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. This Court dismissed the action against Defendant Industrial Commission of Arizona on November 10, 2004 (Doc. #16), and against the remaining Defendants on November 11, 2004 (Doc. #17). On September 25, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motions for Relief From Judgment (Doc. #25). The present motion seeks monetary relief from Defendants, despite that the action is no longer pending. Like the motion before it, Plaintiff cites no authority for his request for post-judgment relief, which is construed as a second Motion For Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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
Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS Document 27 Filed 11/15/2005 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

arguments not raised in their original briefs, 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). Plaintiff's Motion 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. Plaintiff is not entitled to file multiple motions for reconsideration and is instructed not to file any additional motions unless they are permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's failure to adhere to the terms of this Order will result in sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For the Demand of Payment of Claim is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file additional motions unless allowed by the Court. Failure to adhere to this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions including attorneys fees, costs of the Court and opposing counsel.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS Document 27 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 2