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

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Ignacio Lopez, ) No. CIV 04-00128-PHX—ROS
10 Plaintiff] l ORDER
ll vs. g
12 . . . l
13 gfi-:zbIh(a?SStl-all; (C?>l1?1Ip1d1§lss§Ifo?1fFund; )
14 Social Security Administration, 3
Defendants. )
15 )
16 )
17 Pending are Plaintiffs Objection of Minute Order, Requesting Screen of Complaint
18 (Doc. #21), Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. #23) and Petition to Reopen the Case, Screen of
19 the Complaint (Doc. #24). For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.
20 In an Order filed on November 10, 2004 (Doc. #16), this Court granted Defendant's
21 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was ordered to appear and show cause on November 29, 2004
22 why the case should also not be dismissed against any and all defendants not served in
23 accordance with Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When Plaintiff failed to appear
24 as ordered, the case was dismissed without prejudice as to the remaining defendants.
25 Plaintiff does not assert the authority for his Motions, which are construed as
26 motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
27 The Court may grant a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) only upon a
28 showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
Case 2:04-cv—00128-ROS Document 25 Filed O9/15/2005 Page 1 of 2

1 evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any
2 other reason justifying relief from the operation ofthe judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A
3 Rule 60 motion is not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original
4 briefs. g Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26
5 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Cotut to rethink what it has already thought. &
6 United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the
7 Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E. D. Va. 1983)).
8 Plaintiffs Motions simply reassert the arguments he made prior to this Court's orders
9 dismissing his claims. Although Plaintiff does state that he did not receive notice ofthe
10 November 29, 2004 show-cause hearing, the Court file reflects that the November l0, 2004
11 Order was mailed to the address Plaintiff provided to the Court, but was returned by the
12 Postal Service for insufficient address.
13 Because Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the grounds established under Rule
14 60(b) for relief from judgment, his Motions will be denied.
15 Accordingly,
16 IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs Objection of Minute Order, Requesting
17 Screen of Complaint (Doc. #21), Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. #23) and Petition to Reopen
18 the Case, Screen of the Complaint (Doc. #24).
19
20 DATED; , 2005.
21
23 .·._ ,2 1 ·
22 Q s
tr" os Y"? S1
24 Unite ` . es District Judge
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
Case 2:O4—cv—OO128—FlOS Document 25 Filed O9/15/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS

Document 25

Filed 09/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS

Document 25

Filed 09/15/2005

Page 2 of 2