Houston v. Encore Event Technologies

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-02168-ART-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. NEW TRIAL AND MOTION TO ENCORE EVENT TECHNOLOGIES, 7 et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 10 This case was dismissed with prejudice and closed in April 2024. Plaintiff 11 Matthew Houston then brought three motions: two requesting a new trial (ECF 12 Nos. 63, 64) and one requesting that the Court vacate dismissal (ECF No. 66). 13 Houston has previously been declared a vexatious litigant because of the 14 numerous identical complaints he has filed in Nevada courts. Houston v. Encore 15 Event Technologies, Case No. 2:22-cv-01740-JAD-EJY, 2023 WL 7042573, at *4 16 (D. Nev. 2023). The Court dismissed this case for failure to comply with Rule 8, 17 explaining that much of the complaint was indecipherable and the Court was 18 unable to identify a cause of action. (ECF No. 56.) Houston’s motions for a new 19 trial and motion to vacate dismissal are similarly indecipherable and the Court 20 is unable to find an argument explaining why this case should be reopened. 21 A Court may, on motion, grant a new trial after a jury trial or nonjury trial 22 for various reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. However, a Court cannot grant a motion 23 for a new trial when there has been no trial. Because this case never went to 24 trial, Houston’s motions for a new trial are denied. 25 A Court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following 26 limited reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) 27 newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 28 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 1 || previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 2 || opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, 3 || released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed 4 || or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 5 || reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court has reviewed 6 || Houston’s initial petition and its dismissal order and finds that it did not err in 7 || dismissing this case. 8 The Court therefore orders that Houston’s motions (ECF No. 63, 64, 66) 9 || are denied. 10 This action remains closed. 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to designate Matthew Travis Houston as a 12 || restricted filer in this matter and the Clerk will return unfiled any further papers 13 || submitted by Houston in this matter other than a notice of appeal from this 14 || order. 15 It is further ordered that, to the extent required, a certificate of 16 || appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find the district court’s 17 || disposition of Houston’s motions to be debatable or incorrect. 18 19 DATED: January 9, 2025 20 an 21 Ares Nosed? 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28